Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury

Jane Bonham Carter, having been created Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, of Yarnbury in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Steel of Aikwood and the Lord Dholakia.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port

The Reverend Leslie John Griffiths, having been created Baron Griffiths of Burry Port, of Pembrey and Burry Port in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Jay of Paddington and the Lord Habgood.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking ministerial visits to Belfast and Manchester on Tuesday 7 and Friday 10 September? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

HIV/AIDS

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their strategy to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday launched Taking Action: The UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world. The strategy signals major new investment in AIDS—over £1.5 billion over the next three years. It also gives a special focus to tackling the impact of HIV/AIDS on women and young people, including orphans and children made vulnerable by AIDS.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate her on the Government's response so far to this overwhelming and exceptional crisis. Does she agree with the All-Party Group on Africa's recommendations in its recent report on AIDS that DfID should marshal the capacity of all other government departments to assist—for instance, the Department of Trade and Industry in stimulating UK companies which work in Africa to develop proper AIDS programmes for employees and migrant labour; and the Department for Education and Skills to train replacement capacity in the public services?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, this is indeed an integrated strategy. My noble friend may be aware that the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council launched a joint HIV/AIDS employment policy early in 2002 for all employees and their long-term partners in developing countries. We encourage responsible businesses to have in place a similarly effective workplace policy.
	My noble friend is quite right about the human resource capacity crisis in Africa, which is now impacting significantly on the region's governments' ability to deliver vital public services. We will of course encourage other departments working in the area to work with those governments to ensure that the skills gap, which now stands at 1 million qualified professionals, is narrowed.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, the extra resources are welcome indeed, although I hope that the Leader of the House recognises that much more needs to be done, not just by this country but by the West generally, to reduce the appalling toll of death from AIDS, especially in African and other developing countries. She will have read yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which reported that several thousand trained nurses, desperately needed in many African countries, are being recruited to work here in Britain. How does she believe that that helps the fight against AIDS in Africa? How can that policy be defended?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is quite right: more needs to be done. He is also right to say that we need to create the conditions in developing countries that mean that their skilled professionals stay in those countries. One of the most appalling facts is that investment in developing countries by their own citizens, which is encouraged by foreign direct investment, does not stay—there is capital flight. So a big part of our strategy is to create the right conditions in-country.
	On the specific point about nurses, the noble Lord will know that we have a code of practice for the health service, which is working quite well. What is not working as effectively is the voluntary code that applies to the private health sector, which does go in to countries to poach professionals. That remains a cause of concern.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, is it not horrific to contemplate the catastrophic effects of HIV/AIDS across Africa? In Botswana, where life expectancy was 60 10 years ago, it is now 40 and predicted to fall to 27 by 2010. That is why I particularly welcomed the announcement by the International Development Secretary last week, following the spending review, that he would be trebling the UK's contribution to the UN AIDS programme. Does my noble friend therefore share my concern at the comments made by the shadow Chancellor to the effect that, in the unlikely event of a future Tory government, £800 million would be cut from the DfID budget, which would seriously weaken this country's ability to contribute to the worldwide campaign against HIV/AIDS?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: the figures for life expectancy in developing countries where there is a serious HIV/AIDS pandemic are falling. My noble friend is also right to say that there is likely to be a cut in the DfID budget if the Opposition's spending plans go through. However, I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who speaks on these subjects in this House, constantly commends the department's work. I hope that she would fight hard with her colleagues to ensure that that did not happen.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, that statement is welcome, especially in its renewed focus on children, which was missing from previous statements on AIDS. However, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the current estimate is that by 2010 there will be 25 million AIDS orphans? What action are the Government taking to assist those children and, in particular, to assist their carers, who may within families be looking after 18, 20 or 25 children? The pressing issue may be simply how to feed them.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is quite right: the number is set to increase substantially, although the figure that I have is 20 million, rather than 25 million, by 2010. That is still a significant rise. On the work that we are doing with carers, I must say that a number of the carers are children themselves. That is why a key part of the strategy is to work with developing countries to ensure that they prioritise their work on HIV/AIDS on work with orphans and vulnerable children. Not only feeding but educating those children is a key part of the strategy.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although many of the carers of the millions of orphans are young, many of the others are grandparents who are trying to bring up children with none of the help, support or resources that we take for granted in the industrialised world? A whole generation of those children's families has been decimated by that terrible scourge. I declare an interest as a board member of HelpAid International.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: we must consider not only children in those caring roles but grandparents.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also speak on international development for my party in this House. No final decision has been taken by my party on international development spending. In the light of the launch of Taking Action, are Her Majesty's Government confident that the UN target for reducing the number of young people infected by HIV/AIDS by 25 per cent by 2005 is achievable?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we are concerned that a number of the targets will not be met. That is why we have launched our action plan; that is why we have made it absolutely clear what role we will play. Part of that is to give political leadership, which is why that will be a key plank of our G8 and EU presidencies next year. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also speaks on international development. Of course he does, and I hope that his views and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, prevail.

Cannabis: Reclassification

Lord Cobbold: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What have been the main developments following the first six months of cannabis reclassification.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are working with police forces to monitor the policing of drug offences since cannabis was reclassified. Initial feedback from police forces is highly encouraging. Police time can be redeployed to tackling class A drug dealing offences. Young people have learnt of the legal change through government radio and newspaper advertising—93 per cent of under-18s now understand that cannabis is illegal. We have also started a health messages campaign to highlight the particular harms of cannabis.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging response. It is important that there has not been the wild increase in cannabis use as a result of the reclassification that many people feared. Do the Government now fully accept the merits of separating the use of cannabis from the hard drug culture? If so, will the Government now favourably consider further moves towards the decriminalisation of cannabis or, at the least, to the full implementation of the recommendations on cannabis contained in the Runciman report on drugs and the law?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord that there has not been an increase in the use of cannabis. In fact, the slight decrease that we have seen since 1998 has continued. Of course, this is an important change. I cannot say that the Government intend to move further on the matter until we see the results confirmed that we are heading in the right direction.

Lord McNally: My Lords, although we on these Benches supported the reclassification of cannabis, we also pressed that government attention should be applied to dealers, money launderers and others up the criminal chain. Does the Minister have any evidence yet of increased prosecutions in those areas?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are monitoring those figures. The signs are very encouraging. The release of police time from policing the cannabis issue has enabled us to concentrate on class A drugs and other matters. We hope to come forward relatively quickly with figures that I hope will give the noble Lord considerable pleasure.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, we on these Benches are very pleased with the Government's approach to anti-social behaviour and their attempt to address the yob culture phenomenon. Is the Minister confident that the reclassification of cannabis will help those important steps?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as a result of anti-social behaviour legislation we were able to take very aggressive action in closing down crack houses. The powers have proved successful. They have been used on more than 100 occasions nationally, making a particularly effective impact in areas such as Hackney in London, as well as Bristol, Nottingham and Middlesbrough; so they have been very successful indeed.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is depression one of the dangers of taking cannabis?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are a number of dangers in taking any illicit drugs. I would not like to identify depression alone. We clearly maintain that cannabis is an illicit and dangerous drug. That is why we have kept the classification as it is.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of her noble friends were very unhappy with the way in which cannabis was reclassified? For example, there was a lack of notice and it was brought to this House without proper explanation of the benefits of the experiment taking place in Lambeth. Will the Minister now undertake to ensure that when all the statistics to which she has referred have been collected that evidence can be very clearly given to the House so that we can see whether there is a causal link between reclassification and the effect of consumption on class A drugs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the importance of collecting those data. We have made it clear that we wish to collate those data and identify whether, thematically, there are things that we need to do. I can assure my noble friend that we are very anxious for those data to be shared.

British Summer Time

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can identify road safety benefits which would follow the introduction of Single/Double British Summer Time.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a government-commissioned report by the Transport Research Laboratory published in October 1998 concluded that if the UK adopted Single/Double British Summer Time—that is, GMT plus one hour in the winter and GMT plus two hours in the summer—thereby making the evenings lighter, there could be a saving of 400 fewer people being killed or seriously injured per year in Great Britain.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extraordinarily helpful and informative reply, which prompts me to ask the question, why on earth do the Government not get on and do it? They should bear in mind that it is a change which would be widely supported not only by road safety and motoring organisations but also by the tourist industry, including the National Trust, VisitBritain, Age Concern and many other organisations?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble friend appreciated the initial response. Perhaps I may just indicate that there are wider issues than just road safety, although road safety is obviously very important. Of course, it is the wider issues that need to be taken into account. Currently, there is a Bill before the other place: the Government are monitoring its progress carefully.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, when we talk about the wider issues to which the Minister has just referred, they are primarily agricultural concerns and about daylight in the north, particularly in Scotland. Since the report on transport and road safety, agricultural practice has changed markedly. Cows are not milked on family farms to anything like the same extent that they were. Can some work be done to show the trade-off in the disbenefits to farming and the saving of child casualties, which would definitely follow from a change to British Summer Time?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's strength of argument. Agriculture has always been a very important consideration with regard to the extension of summer time. But not just agriculture has to be considered: there are other industries and interests that are worried about darker mornings or mornings that remain darker for longer. The noble Lord will recognise that that is certainly true with regard to certain parts of northern England and, of course, Scotland.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, the Minister is correct. There are considerations other than road safety. Does the Minister recognise that UK industry and commerce suffer, at best, great inconvenience and, at worst, loss of trade at the start and the end of each working day by not being in the same time zone as our European customers and competitors?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is no doubt that there would be an added convenience if we were in the same time zone as other major European countries. But nevertheless I think that the noble Lord will recognise that there is a balance of interests to be struck. Perhaps I may make the obvious point: when British Summer Time was introduced on an extended period between 1968 and 1971, it led eventually to the other place voting against its continuation because of these other interests.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there is a Bill going before the other place. I think that the Second Reading of the Lighter Evenings Bill is in October. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that proper parliamentary time will be given to that Bill if it ever comes to this House? There have been Bills before on which nothing has ever happened; yet we have given a great deal of parliamentary time to the welfare of foxes, children and adults. The implication of the Bill is that, if passed, we shall have not only lighter evenings but also the deaths of a great many adults, children and, indeed, foxes would be saved straightaway.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, at this stage, I am not in a position to indicate the amount of time that could be allocated in this place to such a Bill. However, obviously, to coin a phrase, the Lighter Evenings Bill is being introduced rather late in the day in the other place. There is a problem of it clearing the other place before arriving here. As noble Lords will recognise, we have fairly limited time at our disposal in this parliamentary Session.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there would be a huge opportunity for the tourism, leisure and hospitality industries in Great Britain, including Scotland?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a strong argument. There is no doubt that the tourism industry would see benefits from the extension of summer time. But my noble friend will also recognise that the Bill in the other place proposes that Scotland should take its own decision on this issue. Therefore, that would leave the decision for England and Wales quite separate from Scottish considerations.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there would be a huge disadvantage to Scotland if it had a different time from that south of the Border? Does he ever use his imagination to think about what it would be like in Scotland if in the winter the sun rose at 10 o'clock and set at 5 o'clock? How would that affect accidents and the working world?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, having enjoyed a superb holiday at Whitsun in Glencoe, I do not need to use an excess of imagination to recognise the point being made by the noble Baroness. Her words represent one of the factors which makes progress in this area something that must be approached with due care.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, how would the costs of implementing a further trial compare with the savings suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and what is the cost in economic and social terms of the 400 killed and seriously injured?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not have figures on the costs of those killed and seriously injured, but obviously they would be enormous. However, I think we measure such costs more in terms of human suffering than in terms of financial consideration. Not all these matters can be effected on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. We conduct our politics in this country on the proper representation of interests rather than simply on calculations of cost and benefit.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend just mentioned human suffering. Does he agree that some of us will find it very hard to accept that the saving of 400 lives can be set against these other interests that are somewhat difficult to define? Can he think of any other situation in which 400 lives saved would not be the first thing the Government would tackle?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my response to my noble friend repeats that which I indicated earlier. He will recognise that over the length and breadth of the United Kingdom many interests must be respected. In 1971 we did carry out an experiment. I should point out that the other place was the same in composition in 1971 as it is today; namely, English MPs were in a substantial majority, while the addition of Welsh MPs only increased that majority. But they reached the decision that, despite all other considerations, the experiment should be concluded and we should not continue with extended summer time. However, times change and we shall wait to see the response to the Bill now before the other place.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, as this Question also relates to road safety, does my noble friend believe there would be any road safety benefits as a result of raising the speed limit on motorways to 80 miles per hour?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that that is probably a long way from the Question before the House.

British National Party: BBC Documentary

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take action against Mr Nick Griffin and other British National Party members in respect of their behaviour and comments as filmed in the BBC documentary "The Secret Agent".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government take very seriously all forms of racism and hate crime. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been working closely together in response to the material published in the BBC documentary. Five people were arrested yesterday. The case is still being investigated and so the Home Office is not able to comment further.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Will she join me in congratulating the BBC on its documentary, especially its brave reporter, Jason Gwynne? Will she also congratulate Barclays Bank which today has frozen the accounts of the British National Party? Does she agree that the British National Party is a nasty Nazi party whose policies bring back the smell of Hitler's Nazism, which some of us can remember and some of us fought against? Will she now ensure that the Government probe, monitor and investigate the activities of this evil party and of its leaders, and do everything possible to promote the decent good will with our minority groups in this good country which the Nazi British National Party has been trying to destroy?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join my noble friend in saying that the BBC programme was indeed a startling and shocking revelation of the true face of what appears to be happening within the British National Party, certainly at the meetings that were filmed. Of course I have to accept that the British National Party is a political party in this country. No one in this House will be surprised if I say that its policies are abhorrent both to me and to my party. However, we must accept that the British National Party is a legitimate, democratic political party in this country. A huge amount of work must be undertaken by all those who disagree with its policies to make sure that it does not thrive.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted that, among those of the British National Party who were arrested, not included among them was Mr Nick Griffin? However, had he made remarks about Jews and Judaism like those that he made about Muslims and Islam, he would have been liable to prosecution under public order legislation. Does that not mean, as has been pointed out by the Muslim Council of Britain, that it is important that we get on with the legislation to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred in order to parallel that which is already on the statute book against incitement to racial hatred?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for me to say anything about the first matter mentioned by the noble Lord. Noble Lords know that both the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are continuing their investigations. Given that, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I do not respond to the first part of his question.
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been anxious about these issues and our need to address them. He has made it absolutely clear that he will seek to address this matter in the short rather than the medium term.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Janner for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to some extent pre-empted my question, does my noble friend the Minister feel that the Muslim community is a specific target of the BNP, and that of late it has directed all its efforts against Muslims? Does she also consider that the legislation proposed by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary, which would bring the issue forward in terror legislation, will not go far enough to ensure proper protection of the Muslim community from acts of the kind being suggested by the BNP?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should say to my noble friend that, regrettably, I do not believe that the Muslim community is the only group in the sights of those who want to spread hatred, dissension and division among us. The tragedy is that they have us all in their sights. That is why I can reassure my noble friend that the work we are doing in the publication of the consultation paper Strength in Diversity and the speech of the Home Secretary to the Institute for Public Policy Research is so important. I say that because we are absolutely determined to ensure that evil will not prevail.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is very specific, with all that that involves. Do not the Government agree that the concerns which lie behind it could be addressed by better teaching on racial and religious awareness in the early years; namely, starting in our schools?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, teaching is very important, as is building better communities in our society, as well as sharing and being together. Anything we can do to enhance the good will that exists between people of good will is a task that we should all set ourselves. Teaching is one such task.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, did the Minister notice the discrepancy between the percentage of votes secured by the BNP in the European elections and those it secured at the local government elections, suggesting that people find it easier to vote for a party than for the people representing that party? Will she bear that in mind when the Government contemplate any extension of the list method of voting?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although that point is somewhat wide of the Question, I can certainly say to the noble Lord that all of these matters are extremely important. However, I would say to political parties of all complexions, other than the BNP, that this puts a huge burden on all of us to ensure that that party is given no room to breathe.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that challenging and exposing extreme racists and fascists is better than ignoring them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree. I therefore say again that that is why our Strength in Diversity work is so important. I hope that I can say on behalf of everyone in the House that we are fighting extremism in all its forms.

Lord Winston: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred to the British National Party as "democratic". On reflection, does she feel perhaps that that is a word wrongly used in this context?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I did not mean to say that its members are democratic. The party is a part of the democratic process, which I have to acknowledge. As I said earlier, noble Lords will not be surprised when I say that I find what it stands for entirely abhorrent, not only politically but also personally.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criterion for restricting free speech is not that it causes offence, however gross, but that it tends to provoke a breach of the peace? Does she further agree that the question of whether Mr Griffin passes that test is open enough for us to wish to hear the verdict of a court upon it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may first warmly welcome the noble Earl back to his seat. Those of us who enjoy his contributions have missed him greatly.
	Those judgments will have to be made by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service working together. However, I am sure that the views of the House are absolutely clear.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, however shocking and vile were the comments, we would hear them in many pubs and work places up and down the country. It is no good not recognising that fact. Does my noble friend agree that, in an attempt to draw attention to these fascists, neo-fascists and anti-Semites, we should give help to organisations that want to expel from their memberships those who hold a brief for the BNP? I refer specifically to trade unions that want to divest themselves of these evil people.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree that we should do everything we can to ensure that they find no place to rest in any of our institutions or organisations.

Scrap Metal Industry: Disposal of Cars

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they plan to take in the light of comments by the director general of the British Metals Recycling Association that the scrap metal industry will no longer accept the 45,000 cars which it deals with each week.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on Monday, my colleague, Elliot Morley, Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment, held a constructive meeting with representatives of the metal shredding and car dismantling industries to discuss their concerns over the disposal of end-of-life vehicles. Also present were representatives from the Environmental Services Association, the Environment Agency and the DTI. The meeting agreed a two-point plan that has resulted in the market for scrap cars resuming its normal pattern. That plan will be worked up to form a protocol that will form the basis of a working relationship between the car dismantlers, the metal shredders, the waste management industry and the Environment Agency for the foreseeable future.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It at least means that we will not have 45,000 defunct cars arriving on the streets of Britain every week with nowhere to go. Does he share my disquiet that there was so little planning on the part of both the Government and the Environment Agency that the landfill directive and the end-of-life vehicle directive were not co-ordinated? As a result, the guidance was unclear, the industry did not know what to do and nor did landfill operators. What is the Minister's department doing to put in place clear guidance for an industry that is doing its best to dispose of our waste?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the guidance is clear enough; it is a matter of practicality for the metal shredding and car disposal industries, which are required to separate out the hazardous waste so that the rest of the waste can go to landfill, which no longer provides for hazardous waste. I think the practicalities have now been largely sorted out in the protocol agreed by my honourable friend earlier this week.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this issue goes very much wider than the disposal of cars? The Aluminium Federation and the non-ferrous industries consider that they may be brought almost to a standstill by the new regulations, as nearly all waste, no matter how small, from aluminium manufacturing is now classified and will not be accepted at any of the former sites.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that that is the problem. The issue is not one of capacity for dealing with hazardous waste; in this case, it is to do with the practicality of separating out waste. A number of problems will have to be ironed out in that respect but the allegation, which I have seen in the media, that it is a capacity problem is not right. It is a practicality problem and, to some extent, an economic problem.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister's initial response is welcome. It is pleasing to know that there is at last a satisfactory outcome, but the problem was very well signalled and has been known about for months. Can the Minister explain to the House how it came about that we had to get right to the wire before there was a meeting between his department, the industry and the Environment Agency, agreement between which was necessary to reach a conclusion? The matter was taken beyond the eleventh hour of the eleventh day.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are not dealing with a sudden imposition of new regulations; they have both been in place for about two years, and the practicalities have been sorted out in most respects. In this case, there may have been a somewhat precipitate reaction on the part of the metal disposing industries. With the good will of all parties, that has now been sorted out.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, will the Minister consider giving advice to customers that in future when they buy their cars they will be able to choose one which can be recycled most effectively? That is one of the most important elements of an environmentally friendly car.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be highly desirable if customers chose the most recyclable products of all kinds, including motor cars. It will take time before that situation exists. In the mean time, of course, a producer liability law is being introduced which will require producers to take responsibility for disposal. That law is not yet in place—I think it will be introduced in 2007—but it will resolve in part the issue of disposing of non-recyclable materials.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I thought that the Government had undertaken to introduce a car labelling scheme to give consumers that kind of information. What has happened to that scheme?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are a number of labelling schemes that are not legally required but have been discussed with motoring manufacturers and the industries that produce electronic and electrical goods covered by the parallel agreement—normally known as the WEEE directive—which also affects the situation.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a case of reclassification of the waste? Aluminium waste, which in the past was acceptable for landfill, is no longer acceptable.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not so much a reclassification of the waste than an ending of the co-location of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. For landfills that previously could take both, separation was not a problem. It has now become a problem.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the past three months the price of scrap metal has more than doubled from about £40 a ton to more than £100 a ton? Does that not indicate that the arrangements described by my noble friend are beginning to work?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I bow to my noble friend's knowledge of scrap metal prices. It is certainly true that the industry has gone through a relatively profitable time. That is why, to some extent, the complaint that this was a large economic cost on the industry needs to be seen proportionately and in context. We have now reached an accommodation with all elements of the industry that will enable us, at least for the immediate period, to deal with this rather difficult issue.

Civil Contingencies Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Civil Contingencies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 32, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 33 to 36.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, before the two Statements, perhaps I may make a brief procedural point, which follows various representations that I have had from different parts of the House and a recent meeting that we had with Leaders and Whips. My point relates to the procedure during Statements. I simply remind everyone of the Companion, which says:
	"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
	The emphasis is on the word "brief". My arithmetic tells me that the briefer the comments, the more contributions we shall hear.

Security: Future Capabilities

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
	"With permission Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the need to transform our Armed Forces to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Before doing so, however, I know that the House would want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery, professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve their country in the Armed Forces, as well as those who support them in the Ministry of Defence and British industry. Their reputation is second to none. The transformation that I am setting out today will help to ensure that our Armed Forces can continue to respond effectively to the global challenges that they are likely to face.
	"This Government are absolutely committed to Britain's defence, and to our Armed Forces. That was made abundantly clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor's announcement last week of the budget settlement for defence. The 2002 spending review provided the largest sustained growth in defence spending plans for 20 years. This year it has been possible to make even more resources available to defence, providing the longest period of sustained growth for over 20 years—a defence budget rising by £3.7 billion. It is this sustained investment that makes possible the transformation to which the Government and the Armed Forces are committed.
	"In the 1998 Strategic Defence Review we set out plans to develop defence capability to match the needs of the post-Cold War world. We built on this with the SDR new chapter, published after the appalling events of 11 September 2001, and we confirmed this direction in the defence White Paper of December 2003.
	"That White Paper makes it clear that the threats to Britain's interests in the 21st century are far more complex than was foreseen following the disintegration of the Soviet empire. That is why the defence White Paper signalled that we should continue to modernise the structure of our Armed Forces; to embrace new technology; and to focus on the means by which our Armed Forces can work together with other government agencies to meet the threat of international terrorism and the forces of instability in the modern world.
	"Our Armed Forces have enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation. It will see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people—the inputs which characterised defence planning in the past—to a new emphasis on effects and outcomes, and on the exploitation of the opportunities presented by new technologies and Network Enabled Capability. We measured numbers of people and platforms in the Cold War because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign, holding back Soviet forces. That kind of campaign has fortunately passed into history as technology has moved on.
	"The capability of our Armed Forces is growing year by year as intelligence is combined with target acquisition, modern communications and precision weaponry to produce results which have changed the nature of modern warfare. These new capabilities involve the rapid communication of actionable intelligence to the commander in the field to deliver a range of combined effects, involving all three services and our allies acting efficiently and effectively together.
	"We are also able to respond more rapidly to crises through the improved deployability of our forces. We saw this in 2003 when forces were moved to the Gulf in less than half the time that it took 12 years before. With better target acquisition and precision weaponry, our Air Force was able to hit its targets with less ordnance—and hence fewer aircraft—than in the first Gulf War. The same tasks can now be completed in much less time, with far greater accuracy and correspondingly lower risk to our forces.
	"The defence White Paper makes it clear that this shift in investment towards greater deployability, better targeted action and swifter outcomes would involve a reduction in the numbers of tanks, aircraft and ships. Drawing on our experience of operations since the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces have been identifying which parts of the Armed Forces are most in demand, and which are less well utilised. As a result, we have developed new plans to ensure that our Armed Forces can retain maximum effectiveness. I have set out these plans in detail in the Command Paper on future capabilities, published today.
	"The majority of reductions will effect not the front line but support operations. We will exploit greater efficiencies in the delivery of logistic support and the modernisation of infrastructure. We plan to accelerate this process over the years ahead. Efficiency savings of £2.8 billion are included in our plans. All of this money will be recycled to enhanced our front-line capabilities and other modernisation initiatives.
	"Of course, we are investing more new money in defence. This investment will, for the Army, enable us to fund its transformation into a force which is structured and equipped to meet the demands of multiple, concurrent operations across the full spectrum of tasks. This involves a shift from the current structure which is strong at the heavy and light ends of the spectrum but thinner in medium forces, to one which is better balanced, right across the capability spectrum.
	"The balanced land force of the future will consist of two heavy armoured brigades, three medium weight brigades, based around the Future Rapid Effects System family of medium weight vehicles—FRES—and a light brigade, in addition to the Air Assault and Commando brigades. We launched the assessment phase of the FRES project in April this year and we expect to sign a contract for technology demonstration work to start later this year.
	"The shift in emphasis to more agile, deployable forces means that we will establish an additional three light armoured squadrons, re-role a Challenger 2 regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment and re-role an AS90 regiment into a light gun regiment. Later, we will equip three artillery regiments with the new Light Mobile Artillery Weapon System. At the same time we will seek to improve our ability to engage land targets with precision and at range. The first Apache attack helicopter will go operational later this year, an important first step down this path.
	"It will be followed by improvements in our missile inventory, through the progressive introduction of the Brimstone air-to-ground missile, a new infantry anti-tank guided weapon—Javelin—and improved artillery rounds to allow precision indirect fire over the second half of the decade. Collectively, these improvements will be balanced by a reduction of seven Challenger 2 armoured squadrons and six AS90 heavy artillery batteries by early 2007.
	"Critical as these new weapons systems are, at least as important are the changes that we are making to enhance the Army's Network Enabled Capability. Digitised communications systems provide the network links. The entry into service of Bowman at the tactical level, and the Cormorant and Falcon systems at the operational and strategic levels, will represent a step change in our capability to pass data between commanders and the front line. We are continuing to invest in improved electronic warfare capabilities such as Soothsayer and in developing stand-off sensors, such as the Watchkeeper Unmanned Air Vehicle. I was able to announce yesterday that the preferred bidder for Watchkeeper is Thales Defence Limited. This will provide battlefield commanders with high quality, timely and accurate information. The new joint surveillance aircraft, Astor, recently made its first test flight successfully.
	"Our battlefield and maritime helicopter forces, arguably the most capable in Europe, have demonstrated their versatility supporting the full spectrum of recent operations. Over the next 10 years, we plan to invest some £3 billion in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance our existing capability. This substantial investment within a relatively short timeframe will make it possible to produce a future helicopter fleet focused on the key capability areas of lift, reconnaissance and attack, central to future expeditionary operations.
	"The dominance in the air by alliance and coalition air forces shown in recent conflicts, together with our judgment about the likely threat on deployed operations and our continued investment in Typhoon and its advanced air-to-air weapons means that we can plan to reduce our overall investment in ground-based air defence. We will meet our requirement in future from 24 Rapier fire units and 84 high velocity missile launchers. Rapier will be deployed by the Army with the RAF Regiment relinquishing that role. Ground-based air defence will be commanded by a new joint HQ within the RAF command structure.
	"We are reviewing the implications of these force structure changes for our future equipment plans. In the mean time, I can announce the procurement of additional missiles worth around £180 million for the high velocity missile system.
	"I now turn to the infantry. We currently provide operational and geographical variety for the infantry by moving battalions between locations and roles every few years. This is known as the infantry arms plot. This process inevitably takes battalions out of the order of battle while they are moving and training for new roles. It also adds to turbulence. We need to ensure greater capability from the infantry and improved continuity with better careers for infantrymen and more stability for their families. The infantry arms plot will therefore be phased out.
	"In addition, as a result of the improving security situation in Northern Ireland, we announced last month a reduction in the number of battalions committed to the Province by two. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the GOC have now conducted a further review of security requirements. As a result, I can today announce another reduction of two battalions, which will take place in the autumn. This in turn will reduce the overall requirement for infantry battalions from 40 to 36. This reduction will comprise one battalion recruited from Scotland and three recruited from England.
	"These changes necessitate a new infantry structure. This must preserve the best aspects of the regimental system but must produce an organisation capable of adapting for the future. The new structure will be based on regiments of two or more battalions in largely fixed locations, allowing individuals to move easily between these battalions. Details of the new organisation will be worked out by the Army and announced by the end of the year.
	"The Army Board wants to establish an infantry organisation that will last for the foreseeable future. The manpower released by the reduction of four battalions will be redistributed across the Army to strengthen existing infantry units, but will also be used elsewhere among the most heavily committed specialists, such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence. The overall size of the Army will be around 102,000.
	"Our plans for the Royal Navy involve the further development of a versatile and expeditionary force that is capable of operating at distance from the United Kingdom and is focused on delivering effect on to land at a time and place of our choosing. Two new large aircraft carriers deploying the joint combat aircraft will provide the heart of our future ability to project military power from the sea. I announced on Monday the extension of the assessment phase to take forward further design work on the new carrier in the run-up to our main investment decision. I also announced that the principles of an alliancing approach have been agreed with our industrial partners. We are investing heavily in our amphibious capability. HMS "Albion" and HMS "Bulwark", which were delivered to the Royal Navy last week, will provide a step change improvement in our ability to launch the Commando Brigade and other forces ashore.
	"By ensuring that our major warships are effectively networked and supported, we can deliver more capability from fewer platforms. Developments in network enabled capability—linking sensors and weapon systems—mean that we can meet future area air defence and command and control requirements from a force of eight Type 45 destroyers. With these hugely capable ships currently under construction, we plan to pay off our oldest Type 42 destroyers—HMS "Cardiff", HMS "Newcastle" and HMS "Glasgow"—by the end of 2005. We are still in the early stages of an ambitious procurement programme. We are working with industry to define a timetable that best matches our capability requirements and the need for steady work in both the shipbuilding and repair industries.
	"The potential submarine threat to most future UK operations is likely to be very low. But where a threat does exist, we will still need the full range of advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities to deal with it. We have therefore decided to reduce our overall number of platforms optimised for anti-submarine warfare, while continuing to maintain our technological edge over potential opponents, including through the introduction of the new low frequency active sonar 2087. We will pay off three Type 23 frigates—HMS "Norfolk", HMS "Marlborough" and HMS "Grafton"—by March 2006.
	"This shift of emphasis also allows us to meet our maritime reconnaissance needs with 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft. The requirement could in future be met by a fleet of around 12 more capable Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, subject to industry demonstrating satisfactory performance at acceptable prices.
	"We require a total of eight nuclear attack submarines. The introduction of the new Astute class boats will hugely enhance the SSN contribution across the spectrum of operations. There has been solid progress on the first of the class, following the restructuring of the project. Work continues on boats 2 and 3 as well as on long-lead items for boat 4 but there is still more to be done before finalising production orders. We are also investing in the latest generation of Tomahawk land attack missiles and improvements to submarine communications to give our current and future submarines an improved land attack capability. Our mine countermeasure vessels have made a valuable contribution to recent operations.
	"Against the changing threat, we need to retain a balanced force of eight Hunt class and eight Sandown class vessels. We plan to pay off HMS "Inverness", HMS "Bridport" and HMS "Sandown" by April 2005. The improved security situation in Northern Ireland also makes it possible to pay off the Northern Ireland patrol vessels HMS "Brecon", HMS "Dulverton" and HMS "Cottesmore" by April 2007.
	"As a consequence of these changes, the manpower of the naval service will reduce to 36,000 over the next four years.
	"Air power is critical to the prosecution of modern warfare. Over the next 10 to 15 years, an accelerating transformation of our air power will enable quicker, more precise and decisive operations at range, delivered by multi-role Typhoon and joint combat aircraft equipped with highly capable weapons. The Typhoon programme is now moving forward towards initial operating capability, with indications that the aircraft is demonstrating excellent performance and good reliability. We expect to sign a contract for the second tranche of Typhoon aircraft as soon as we complete satisfactory negotiations over price and capability.
	"The investment in our air forces is already producing substantial improvements in existing aircraft. The Tornado GR4 is now one of the most potent offensive aircraft systems in the world, fully capable of day and night operations in all weathers. The Harrier GR9 development programme is on course to deliver a significantly more capable platform with much wider versatility, including for carrier-borne operations. The tactical information exchange capability project will examine how the effectiveness of the GR4 and GR9 can be further enhanced by improving their networked capability. The Tornado F3 aircraft is now equipped with AMRAAM and the world-leading ASRAAM air-to-air missiles and is fully networked through the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System. The new Storm Shadow long-range air-to-surface missile proved itself as a world-beater during the recent Gulf War. New precision-guided Paveway IV bombs will further enhance our overall capability in the short term.
	"With these significant advances in capability, we now judge that we need to reduce the types and overall numbers of the RAF fast jet force, providing a firm baseline for the transition to the multi-role era. We will reduce the number of our air defence Tornado F3 squadrons by one, and bring forward the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons to 2006, with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007. These changes in the force structure and the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies will lead to a reduced RAF manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008. This will allow us to close RAF Coltishall airfield by December 2006. We will also be undertaking an extensive review of our future requirement for airfields. Following an extended period of consultations we have decided to rationalise the basing requirements of a number of RAF logistic support and communication units. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is writing today to those honourable Members whose constituencies may be affected.
	"The RAF also plays an essential enabling role in support of expeditionary operations through its strategic and tactical airlift capability. The core of this capability remains the fleet of C-130 aircraft and, from 2011, the A400M. To accommodate larger items we have already announced that we were considering the options for retention of C-17s after A400M enters service. I am pleased to announce that we intend to buy the current fleet of four at the conclusion of the current lease arrangement and to purchase one additional aircraft bringing our C-17 fleet up to five aircraft.
	"Amidst these structural and major equipment changes, we must never neglect the more immediate needs of our Armed Forces in the field and in particular their personal equipment. We already have a major programme under way in the light of experience from Operation TELIC. I am now able to announce some further enhancements. This year we will be procuring additional light machine guns for the infantry, together with night vision and target acquisition systems for forces in land, sea and air environments, as well as further enhancements to our Special Forces capabilities. We will also make major enhancements to our asset tracking capability to ensure the right materiel is in the right place at the right time. We have learnt the lessons from recent operations in Iraq.
	"Alongside the modernisation of our conventional forces, as set out in last year's White Paper, the Government remain committed to maintaining the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent including making the necessary investment at AWE Aldermaston, and to keeping open the options for a successor to Trident until a decision is required, probably in the next Parliament.
	"In addition to the reductions in numbers of Armed Forces manpower we envisage reductions of around 10,000 in the number of civilian jobs. These flow from efficiencies as a consequence of the department's change programme and other initiatives. The reductions in Armed Forces and civilian manpower will be achieved as far as practicable through natural turnover. We will also retrain and redeploy personnel wherever possible. We have a commitment to enabling our people to develop their skills and abilities so that those who leave are well equipped for life outside defence and those who stay are properly trained for their roles. But inevitably there will be redundancies. We will use the normal consultation processes to achieve them.
	"The White Paper makes clear that our Reserve Forces have evolved to become an integral part of the UK's military capability. We learnt many lessons from operations in Iraq about how we mobilise our reserves and how we need to strengthen the relationship between the services, reservists, their families and their employers. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement tomorrow about our plans to consult on proposals to update financial assistance to reservists when they are called into service and to compensate employers who incur additional costs as a result of their staff being called up.
	"There will be those who will claim that the defence budget is under such pressure that it is impossible to sustain the department's forward equipment programme. In fact, the spend with industry will continue at the level of recent years. It is of the utmost importance that industry takes the maximum advantage of this substantial investment to produce what the Armed Forces need at a price that we can afford. We will take forward our defence industrial policy, implementing these changes, in conjunction with industry, to ensure a healthy and competitive defence industry that continues to play the leading role in our economy that it enjoys today. I am confident that it will respond to this challenge.
	"For the third successive spending review, this Government have been able to announce real growth in the defence budget. This is without precedent since the mid-1980s. Even with these additional funds it is necessary to secure maximum benefit from efficiencies and make choices to ensure that our force structure matches the requirements of today's security environment. The plans that I have announced today show this Government's determination to make the choices necessary to ensure that the real growth in defence expenditure is targeted at what the Armed Forces require in the 21st century rather than what they have inherited from the 20th. They will ensure that the Armed Forces are equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future those tasks which they have so admirably undertaken in recent years".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches join the Minister in paying tribute to the dedicated members of our Armed Forces. We remember the 61 servicemen killed in Iraq and are thinking of their families.
	This Statement is an important one, as are all Statements on the defence of the realm. But like so many Statements that this Government have made, it is as important for what it fails to tell the House as for what it tells us.
	We welcome the announcement on Watchkeeper and the C-17s. We welcome some of the steps to be taken to rebalance our Armed Forces for the threats of today and tomorrow. However, the announcement is about cuts. Members of the House and the Armed Forces should prepare themselves for continuing cuts in the months to come. The Government must not think that, by announcing cuts the day before the long recess, they will be able to draw a line under this. No, this is an issue that deserves respect and consideration. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to convey our request that there should be a full defence debate at the earliest opportunity.
	We were told last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the resources to be allocated to defence over the next few years. We are now looking to the Minister and his colleagues to explain how that money will be rationed out, for it will have to be spread pretty thinly. We are short of hard figures, numbers and dates. We need to know the truth, without spin, about numbers being recruited into the Armed Forces; how the trained strength is developing; and how retention figures compare with those for premature voluntary retirement.
	We need to know how the Army is to be reorganised. It is the regimental system that gives the British Army its character and makes it much more formidable and efficient, man for man, than even the high-tech American army. We need to know about numbers of warships and aircraft. We need to know about new equipment, planned and coming into service. We look for assurances that the equipment programme is fully funded on the basis of realistic through-life costs.
	We need to be assured that current equipment will not be taken out of service until the new equipment is in place, up and running. We admire the Minister's confidence that the new carriers will be deploying the JCA. We hope that there is no gap between the commissioning of the first carrier and the JCA entering service. May I ask the Minister about the position regarding the Defence Communication Services Agency, which has such a critical role in network-enabling our defence capabilities across the board? Can the Minister indicate a specific timetable for the thorough reorganisation of the Defence Logistics Organisation as a whole? Can he also confirm that there will be adequate and specific provision for the costs of large-scale joint exercises—activities of the greatest importance?
	It seems to us that, in pursuance of their policies, the Government are prepared to make the fullest use of the Armed Forces, including the under-equipped reserves. However, they continue to begrudge providing them the resources that they need to do their job. The result is, as an Army officer told me yesterday, that they are working at a pace that is not sustainable.
	We cannot predict where our Armed Forces will be fighting in 10 years' time, but we can predict that they will be fighting for us somewhere and that we will be counting on them to win. We must ensure that they are not only properly and fully equipped, but well trained and available in the numbers required to fight the wars that we cannot predict today. We shall, of course, be told that the service chiefs will say that we have the best for which we could hope in the circumstances; they are bound to say that. It is the grudging attitude of the Government towards the necessities of strong defence that makes the circumstances wrong.
	In conclusion, I commend to the Minister and to the House the express views of my right honourable friends Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin, who have said:
	"We guarantee to maintain the fighting capability of our forces. We shall ensure that they are provided with the necessary funds and equipment to carry out the tasks and commitments required of them. If that requires increases in defence spending, we will spend it".

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for that 3,500-word Statement. It is certainly the longest Statement that I have heard read out in this House; the Minister did well to do it without even a glass of water. I shall start by taking a sideswipe at my Opposition Front-Bench colleague. He almost asked for it with his last comment, saying that the Leader of the Opposition would spend more on defence without further taxation. That will be an interesting trick, and I would very much like to look at those figures.
	It is welcome that the Government have committed to more spending on defence. However, their commitments to defence recently mean that the excess spending will be swallowed up quite easily. On wading through the Statement, I finally found the figure of 102,000, which is the number of men in the Army. That is the important figure that we have been trying to winkle out of the Minister with a number of questions in the past few weeks. It has been our suspicion that the Government were to reduce the number in the Armed Forces to 102,000, and that has finally been confirmed.
	We are looking at a number of debates and questions in future about the disappearance of regiments. It is obviously very sad that a number will be lost. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there has to be a change to the infantry system. We would welcome something that led to a more rational and modern system to address some of the problems faced by infantry personnel. They have to move every three years on rotation, which has caused so many problems of overstretch, as has been raised in many debates in this House.
	An area of the Statement that will have to be looked at again is where the Government talk about making savings away from the front line. That goes back to a policy introduced by the Conservatives called Front Line First. It could be quite a dangerous policy. Under Front Line First, money was pumped into front-line services, at the expense of support services. We very much hope that the Minister will take on board the lessons learnt through the almost annihilation of the Royal Army Medical Corps, which caused so many problems, especially as logistics was one area particularly highlighted in the NAO report on the last Gulf War.
	The reduction in naval capability seems extremely stringent. It is not possible to look at those cuts without a careful eye. However, it is good that the Government are looking at not cancelling the carriers as yet. At this point, after the reviews, has the Minister worked out how large the carriers will be? That seems an issue of some concern, especially in the area of timing and cost. Has any progress been made with the Americans about technology transfer over the main armament of the carriers, which will be the Joint Combat Aircraft? On that basis, we welcome very much the introduction of Watchkeeper, and the fact that we will go with Thales. It seems ridiculous that we would go with an American company as, under the present legislation, some of the technology involved in those aircraft systems would not be revealed to us even though we were buying the system.
	We support the A400M and the target date set out in the White Paper of 2011. I very much hope that the Minister can confirm that that time scale will not shift too much in future, although that may be difficult for him. We also support his words about the reservists and looking at financial issues that have arisen through their serving in the Gulf. On these Benches, we recognise the service given not only by regular servicemen in the Gulf, but by reservists. In that review, will the Ministry of Defence also look at the training of reservists? Although it is possible to talk about remuneration—that is an issue at the moment—it seems ridiculous and extremely unfortunate that the man-training days and the period in which reservists have been trained have been continually under threat for the past few years.
	I welcome the Statement but, considering its size and detail—we have had only a brief time to scan it—I hope that the Minister will look as an urgent priority at introducing a debate on the White Paper.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what they have had to say. Their mild and good manners, and the way in which they put forward their cases, are very much in the tradition of this House. However, their approach in thinking about the Statement covered one or two gaps as to what their respective parties—both ambitious for power, we are led to believe—would do if they found themselves in that position.
	We will take away the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on reserve training and come back on it. So far as a debate is concerned, both noble Lords know exactly what I am going to say—that it is a matter for the usual channels. We will see where that goes. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about defence logistics and the transformation programme. We believe that it will revolutionise the delivery of support to all three services, improving the operational effectiveness and flexibility of such support and saving about £1 billion per year by 2008. I hope that that is some sort of answer for him.
	I was asked about the size of the aircraft carriers, which will be the largest warships that this country has ever built. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that they had not been cancelled as yet. Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue; we have no intention whatever of cancelling them. I would like very much to hear what his party and that of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, have to say about that. No doubt in due course we will hear whether they will commit themselves, as we are committing ourselves, to those amazing ships.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, quoted his leader and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer making a pronouncement that is very different—certainly in the shadow Chancellor's case—from what was said a few months ago. At that point, he made it clear that the only two departments to have their expenditure ring-fenced would be health and education. Indeed, I believe he said that there would be zero per cent growth for the first two years for other departments which, as the noble Lord heard me say before the announcement of the spending review, implied a cut of £1.5 billion. Now that figure is £2.6 billion. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Astor, to quote what his leader and the shadow Chancellor may have said. But what does that actually mean?
	We were delighted to hear the noble Lord say this afternoon that aid expenditure would be ring-fenced. This morning the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said that defence spending would be ring-fenced and we are also delighted to hear that. It is beginning to look as if everything will be ring-fenced. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a word of warning. The experience of this side of the House was that we used to go into elections saying that everything would be ring-fenced, we would not cut anything and we would spend more on everything; but look where that got us. My warning is that we will be asking him and his colleagues over many months—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, that was up until 10 years ago to the day when the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour Party. Then we began to tell the public what we would do realistically. That is why we are on this side of the Chamber and the noble Lord and his colleagues are, for the moment, on the other side. Please, let us have some realism from the party opposite. What does it intend to do regarding defence? We have absolutely no idea what its policy is. It is about time that we were told.
	Regarding the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid that I have absolutely no idea what their defence policies are and what they stand for because we hear completely different versions of their policy depending on whether they sit in this House or whether they are engaged in by-elections. There was not much Liberal Democrat support for the Armed Forces at the time of the recent by-elections.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, with the utmost respect, will the Minister recognise that we have a very short time to ask questions on an important issue and we do not, as a House, wish to hear a series of party statements? We are concerned about defence. I should be grateful if the Minister would refrain from discussing various party issues and let us get on with defence.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's intervention. I always listen carefully to her comments. But the time that I take in responding to what I believe were party points from both the other Front Benches—

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Bach: My Lords, they were. That time will not influence at all the time that the Back-Benches in this House will have to ask questions in a few minutes' time. The time that I take will not eat into the valuable Back-Bench time.
	I wished to make the point that on the streets of the cities where the by-elections were held we heard nothing at all about praise for the British Armed Forces either in this country or in Iraq. We heard crude anti-Americanism and, "Get the British troops out of Iraq as soon as possible". At least the political party Respect does not speak with two tongues.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said that our policy was to get the British troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. After the handover of power, I thought that that was the Government's policy, too.

Lord Bach: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been on the streets to which I referred, he would have heard his people say that we should get out of Iraq now rather than at some time in the future. It would be helpful if the Liberal Democrats could speak with one voice rather than many, depending upon where they happen to be. We would listen to what they have to say on this important matter if they were slightly more consistent with what they said elsewhere.
	In summary, I detect from the attitudes of the two noble Lords to my comments that they require a longer time to examine the contents of the Statement and then to come to their judgments. They are entitled to that. But I do not think that they disagree that we need to modernise our Armed Forces, that we need to spend within the resources allowed for them and that sometimes that means that hard choices have to be made. That was the case when the party of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, was in government; it is the case now that we are in government; and, I am afraid, it will be the case for evermore. This document goes a long way towards modernising our Armed Forces. It follows what we have said before and I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. These are major changes. A Statement with brief questions does not give the House any opportunity to consider them in depth. So, I, too, strongly support the request for an early debate on defence and security.
	The Statement reveals some welcome new capabilities that lie in the future. Meanwhile, are we not taking a major strategic risk by cutting back and withdrawing capabilities long before the new systems are operational? Is there not a basic contradiction in the Government's position? If we are to operate alongside the US, they will rightly expect from us not only technical synergy but also a reasonable contribution to the joint effort. Have these proposed cuts been explained to the United States?
	Has any allowance been factored in for losses? We have been fortunate in recent conflicts, but the lessons of the Falklands with the loss of eight highly capable naval platforms and all but one large helicopter inflicted by a far from world-class air force must not be forgotten. So I deplore the major reductions proposed in naval and air platforms before new capabilities are available.
	Finally, what chance is there that these changes will see an end to year-by-year snap savings in recruitment, training and exercising, which are hurriedly adopted to stay within cash limits but enormously inefficient and wasteful of defence effort?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I respect the noble and gallant Lord's concerns in this field. I can say only that we are confident, as are the Chiefs of Staff, that the balance of today's proposals will not have the adverse effect that the noble and gallant Lord fears. We cannot wait until all-new equipment is on stream before beginning to reduce some of the assets that need to be reduced. That has to happen at the same time. We do not believe that his fears will be realised and I want him to believe that careful judgment has been taken over a long period to establish exactly where the balance lies. I should emphasise to the House that these Government proposals have the absolute backing of the Chiefs of Staff.

Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps before asking my question I should mention that I lived through the World War 1 and served in the territorials throughout World War 2. I am conscious that however good our regular Army is—and it is splendid—we always have to have big enough reserves and a big enough Territorial Army. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Territorial Army is not only big enough, but also well enough trained and equipped?

Lord Bach: My Lords, regarding reserves, the lengthy Statement talked about the vital role that reservists are playing within the Army. It is arguable that they have never had to play such an important operational role as they are playing now. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about training for reserves and I promised him that I would take that back and ensure that the position is reviewed.
	I made it clear that my colleague Ivor Caplin will make a Statement on future reserves tomorrow and that the role they play now is enormously important in the fighting force that the UK Armed Forces provide. We are determined that they will not have a more difficult time in their capacity as reservists—in other words, we are determined that their employers will be satisfied by the terms that they are offered when their people are taken away. We shall continue to ensure that reservists, who are often of great importance in the enabling roles where there are sometimes shortages in the Regular Army, are employed in a proper and full way. The future for the reserves is extremely promising.

Lord Truscott: My Lords—

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords—

Lord Inge: My Lords—

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have heard a point from the Cross Benches. It is now the turn of this side to ask a question. We shall then no doubt hear from the Liberal Democrats and I am sure that there will then be an opportunity for a question from the Cross Benches.

Lord Truscott: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in the Kosovo conflict the European members of NATO struggled to provide 40,000 combat-ready troops for peacekeeping duties, even though that was one-fiftieth of their total Armed Forces? Does he agree that what this country needs is a modernised and readily deployable 21st century military based on precision weapons and network capabilities able to fight the battles of the future rather than the past? Does he concur that the Government's seven years of real-terms increases in defence spending contrast starkly with the Tories' planned real-terms cuts, despite the U-turn announced today? Does he agree that those cuts would decimate the armed services and threaten the country's security?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I basically agree with what he says. I do not understand why there are groans around the Chamber. In our turn, when in opposition, we were attacked all the time by parties opposite for not having a credible defence policy. From this side, we are simply saying mildly that neither of the parties opposite has a credible defence policy, and this White Paper makes it clear that we do. I agree very much with what my noble friend said.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us in this House who do not have military experience were none the less very impressed a few weeks ago by the words of someone who does have much military experience; namely, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall? He said that the one thing we should not cut at a time of modernisation and uncertainty regarding future threat is the number of people. That seems to run counter to the Government's Statement. Does the Minister also accept—I speak as someone who represented the Scottish Borders for many years—that on the ground the importance of family pride in a particular regiment is a significant factor in recruitment and that, in cutting numbers, the Government should be careful that they do not throw away important parts of our heritage?

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, notwithstanding—

Lord Bach: My Lords, if the noble and gallant Lord will forgive me, I believe that his question may be somewhat similar. I do not know why I say that but I think that it may be. Of course, I listened carefully to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said some weeks ago and he certainly made an important point. I want to try to explain why we believe that the numbers that we have decided on are appropriate—in particular, so far as concerns the Army.
	With regard to the organisational changes in the Army, we believe that we can move from a manpower requirement of 108,000 to one of 102,000. At present, I should tell the noble Lord that the figure is 103,500. We believe that we can make that move because organisational change, the introduction of the new capabilities and equipment and the revised timing assumptions, which are made on the basis of the strategic environment as we now see it, have allowed us to reduce the Army's manpower requirements to that limited extent.
	However, the strength of the Army will remain broadly as it is today until full normalisation is achieved in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will have heard me say that four battalions are being taken from Northern Ireland, and the reduction referred to in the Statement is predicated on full normalisation there. For those reasons, in the balance that we have to make here—the noble Lord will accept that all these decisions are ones of balance—we feel that what we are suggesting is a very minor decrease.

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, first, notwithstanding the Minister's remarks about real growth, defence is facing cuts and those cannot be disguised as anything else, however hard Ministers try. But growth is not sufficient. What is the reason for the cuts? Is it purely financial? If it is, I think that that is surprising, considering that the Government continue to express great confidence in the economy.
	Secondly, in view of the very many commitments that the Armed Forces have today and are likely to have over the coming years, no government of late that I can think of have used the Armed Forces more often and in more different places. I am delighted that the Chiefs of Staff, like the noble and gallant Lords who were also once Chiefs of Staff, are loyal to the Government. But I have talked to a large number of people who are not Chiefs of Staff and I get a very different picture. They believe that, if the forces are to be used, they should be funded properly.

Lord Bach: My Lords, anything that the noble and gallant Lord says is well worth listening to. But I reject his suggestion that defence spending is not rising. It is rising each year. As he knows, the Chancellor has allocated an extra £3.7 billion to defence up to the year 2007–08, and that represents average annual real growth. Of course, every department would like more money than it receives. But we are content that this is a generous settlement and we realise that we have to work within its confines.
	The noble and gallant Lord described the attitude of the present Chiefs of Staff as "loyal". I think that it is a matter of rather more than loyalty. With regard to some fields—for example, the future Army as it is envisaged—that attitude is very much in line with the view taken by the Army Board in terms of the infantry. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept that these decisions are not only politically led; they are taken, as they were in his time, jointly by the politicians, the military and the Ministry of Defence.
	I accept that for many of our people the changes may be unsettling. These are difficult times. But I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept that, within the resources allowed to us—as I said, there is real improvement in that respect—we have done our very best to get the balance right between what we need to do to ensure that our Armed Forces can meet the needs of the 21st century and, at the same time, ensure that taxpayers' money is properly spent.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked the Minister the size of the two aircraft carriers. He did not receive a reply. In the original Statement, we were told that it was 65,000 tonnes. Since then, rumours and statements have been circulating widely that it is 55,000 tonnes. The difference in capacity and capability between those two sizes is fundamental. Can the noble Lord say which it is?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot say which it is because no final decision has yet been taken. The noble Lord will know that in the very important assessment phase of a project such as this the key design parameters are established. Those include the size as well other aspects of the aircraft carriers. But the noble Lord and others can rest assured that these will be the largest warships that this country has ever built. They will be extremely large. I cannot give the noble Lord the tonnage or the size at present, but it would be surprising if I could. We are still working out the requirement and how we can best meet that important requirement. However, I can say that the two new aircraft carriers will form the basis of our future naval defence policy.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on at least one thing; that is, his recognition of the fact that investment in what I believe is now called C4I is an absolute and total priority, and it is that which is forcing us to make some of these very unwelcome cuts in the numbers of platforms.
	My noble friend said that in some cases more capability could be delivered from fewer platforms. That is certainly not the case with strategic air transport. I therefore welcome what he said about the C17, although he did not go nearly as far as I would have liked. Can he confirm, as it was not quite clear from what he said, first, when or if this mythical A400M will appear—I am prepared to take a substantial wager with my noble friend that that will not be when the Liberals think it will be—that there will be no question of getting rid of our C17 fleet at that time? Secondly—I do not expect my noble friend to have this answer at his fingertips, but I should be grateful if he could inform the House—how many Typhoons will we have to give up in order to get another five C17s?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as concerns the first question, I hope that I made clear when reading the Statement—if I did not, I am sure that it was my fault—that the aim is to have those C17s working alongside a fleet of C130s and A400Ms. I hope that that gives some satisfaction. As to my noble friend's second, rather hypothetical question, he is quite right: I am unable to answer.

Lord Inge: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, I hope that he will have recognised from the debate we have had so far and from some of the detail we have gone into, the need for debate in this Chamber on defence issues, which are so important, not only to the Armed Forces but to the nation as a whole. Such debate is to be greatly encouraged.
	I hope the Minister also agrees that although some restructuring has taken place, it will not be welcomed by all elements of the Armed Forces. The question of morale in those areas will need careful handling, as it will have a knock-on effect.
	I welcome much of what was said by the Minister about the importance of network-centric warfare and the need to improve our operational, expeditionary warfare capability. The problem is that much of what is promised is "jam tomorrow" in terms of the Future Rapid Effect System for the Army. That vehicle has not even been designed, let alone being ready to come into service. So, much that has been promised is a long way down the track.
	I recognise also the rebalancing that is needed for command and control and operational logistics. Equally, I believe that cutting Army manpower is part of the real problem. Taking it down from 103,500 to 101,000 creates part of the problem. What I really do not understand—I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—is the need to cut four infantry battalions out of the order of battle, given that they are the workhorse of the Army. They may not be needed for network-centric warfare, but they will be needed to help keep the peace in places such as Africa, the Balkans and elsewhere. I stress that I am not talking about the reorganisation of the infantry—my own regiment is very vulnerable—but about a skill that the British Army has that no one else has. We are in danger of taking four very important major units out of the order of battle. I should like to hear the Minister's reaction.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who always talks with huge experience on these matters. I understand that the feeling that there is a need for debate is high all round the House. I shall pass that on, but it will be a matter for the usual channels.
	We are all aware in the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces that morale is very important when a Statement such as this is made. The noble and gallant Lord will understand that the Chief of the General Staff is very aware of that fact and is no doubt acting on it as we speak.
	Many of the plans that we have will emerge only in some years' time. The noble and gallant Lord knows better than most how long it takes for equipment to come into force, particularly sophisticated, modern, complex defence equipment. However, we have to start and to continue with the projects that we have in mind. I can only repeat that the proposed reductions in the Army are very small. They are predicated on full normalisation in Northern Ireland. The balanced view is taken that, as things are in the Province at present, it is sensible to remove four battalions, and as things are elsewhere, it is also a sensible thing to do for the total Army.

Lord Garden: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is the fourth major rebalancing of the Armed Forces in the past 13 years, all of which have affected and reduced platforms and personnel? Can he explain what is special about his proposals that overcome the defence inflationary effect; that is, the fact that costs of defence rise faster than normal inflation? Can we expect yet another rebalancing exercise in the next four years?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not know that this was the fourth such exercise in that time. He, no doubt, took part in a different role in the first three. I cannot promise for a moment that this is the last, but it is one of the most important. We have reached a point where, as has been said in the Chamber today, quite rightly, our Armed Forces have been asked to do a great deal in the past few years, and we have learnt a number of lessons which perhaps took a long time to learn after the Cold War; that is, what sort of warfare or peacekeeping we would need in the years ahead. That is the basis for the changes that we suggest today.
	We accept that when full structure changes are made, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, these issues are of great concern to those who serve us so well in the Armed Forces. However, it is important that the Armed Forces in this country evolve. They have evolved from time immemorial. That is the only way they have retained their skill and high reputation. I do not apologise if this is the fourth such exercise in 13 years. We have to ensure that we have the right structure for the difficult years ahead.

Rural Strategy 2004

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
	"I am pleased to present to the House today the Government's Rural Strategy 2004. As in the rural White Paper 2000, our vision for rural communities is based on delivering genuinely sustainable development, with economic and social strategies consistent with our aim of protecting and enhancing our natural heritage for future generations. So Rural Strategy 2004 presents an ambitious set of policy priorities for rural communities and the countryside, coupled with radical reforms to the delivery of those policies.
	"Fresh evidence we commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas. For example, measured in terms of average household income, 55 per cent of households in rural areas are above the median.
	"But the evidence also confirms that this picture is by no means uniform across rural England. Rural society is changing in ways that are blurring the distinction between urban and rural. Farming remains at the heart of rural society, an important focus of rural policy. But employees in rural businesses are now more likely to be employed in manufacturing, tourism or retailing. And within the overall picture of relative prosperity, there are pockets of economic and social disadvantage.
	"This evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation. My reform agenda sees the devolution of decisions and delivery to get help to the areas and people that need it most. And to ensure that they are able to access this help, I will ruthlessly streamline the funding support we provide. The present 100 rural, agricultural and environmental funding schemes will be reduced to three major funding programmes linked to strategic priorities, allowing us to both sweep away unnecessary rules and simplify application processes.
	"Our policy has three main planks: first, while supporting prosperity across the board, taking action to help the minority of rural areas that are lagging economically. I want rural businesses to have the support they need. This year I will put an extra £2 million into the Business Link network, to improve support and assistance to businesses, especially in lagging rural areas. I want all rural businessmen and women to know that they can turn to a service that understands their needs, including agricultural businesses and businesses diversifying from agriculture, and a service to help them through the existing maze of services and grants available.
	"I will devolve decision-making and funding for economic regeneration to the regional development agencies, to allow decisions better to reflect the needs and pressures in each region. I am increasing the funding Defra provides to the RDAs' single pot from £45 million to £72 million next year. To ensure it is spent in the most effective way, each region is to put in place arrangements to facilitate rural prioritisation within a strong partnership structure. I shall not impose a single structural form—I want to encourage maximum simplification and streamlining, so that regional delivery partners are set free to focus on doing, not talking.
	"Local authorities have a vital role as community leaders in joining up and delivering quality services. I therefore intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities. Over the course of this year we will set up a pathfinder in each region, to explore practical ways of providing more joined up and flexible approaches at local level in rural areas, including to join up services and funding at the point of delivery.
	"The second plank of our policy is to tackle rural social exclusion wherever it occurs and achieve fair access to services. Access to transport, affordable housing and to broadband help to underpin both economic prosperity and social justice for rural dwellers. Last week the Government announced more money for sustainable housing. My department will act as guardian, to ensure that this money helps to address social disadvantage in rural areas.
	"I will devolve money for building capacity in the voluntary and community sector to each region, to be managed through the government offices. It is this sector that can truly understand local need and provide innovative solutions.
	"But I want to be sure we get an independent assessment of results. I see the need for a rural advocate as being as strong as ever. So I will create a small and well-focused new countryside agency by next April, initially within the legal framework of the existing body, to act as expert watchdog and advocate on behalf of rural communities. Its priority will be rural disadvantage, and it will act as a think tank and futures body, drawing on its monitoring of progress and best practice to suggest innovative solutions to government.
	"The third plank of our policy is to protect and enhance the natural environment in rural areas— and our green spaces in towns and cities—and that of our seas, coasts and rivers. A healthy and attractive countryside not only brings social benefits such as tranquillity, but also economic benefits—over 300,000 jobs depend directly on it and rural tourism brings around £13.8 billion to the rural economy each year.
	"Rural England is also a treasure trove of diverse and wonderful landscapes and wildlife. Its natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life: improving its health is the most valuable inheritance we can leave.
	"Our woodlands, for example, help mitigate the effects of climate change—one of the most serious environmental problems the world faces. Visiting the countryside does much to improve our quality of life, provides recreation, better health, and a source of education and learning.
	"Much of the quality of our landscape and its biodiversity depends on how it is managed by farmers and others. The changes we are introducing as a result of CAP reform will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment.
	"And, as recommended by Lord Haskins, we will establish an integrated agency to deliver our policy objective of a healthy countryside valued and used in a sustainable way. The new agency will be a powerful, independent statutory NDPB, building on the world-class strengths of English Nature, the Countryside Agency, and the Rural Development Service. Its remit will be the integrated management of our natural heritage that the challenges and environmental threats of the 21st century demand. That will include biodiversity, landscape and sustainable use of the countryside, including recreation and access. It will have a remit to carry out its functions within a sustainable development context. It will work closely with the RDAs—and elected regional assemblies, if established—to ensure that the natural environment is taken into account in regional policy-making and activity.
	"Formal establishment of the integrated agency will require primary legislation. I intend to bring forward legislation next year and to publish a draft Bill as an early step. In the mean time, while each of the three bodies will remain responsible for their own statutory duties, they will come together into a confederation of partners by April next year. To help that partnership work, I will move the Rural Development Service out of the policy core of Defra and give it the autonomy that befits a major delivery body.
	"This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners, as well as to our own delivery agents. And the significant streamlining of our funding should make things easier and simpler for our customers.
	"These arrangements are aimed at improving effectiveness in the delivery of our three policy priorities within an enduring framework of sustainable development. They will also deliver efficiencies, exploiting operational synergies and removing duplication. They have been developed in an inclusive and transparent way. They will build on the excellent work being done across the country by those working for Defra and its family, and beyond Defra. They will provide greater freedom to staff, to get on with delivering what our customers need from government. I am confident our people will rise to the challenge.
	"I want these reforms to be workable, but sufficiently flexible to meet future challenges and changes. I commend the approach and its implementation to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating a Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. We too are pleased with many of the aspirations set out in the Statement, and that the Government recognise there are areas of deprivation within our rural communities—a matter on which it has taken a little while to persuade them.
	However, we do not agree with the Government that these matters and hopes are best resolved by working through local regional government development agencies. We believe that such decisions should go through elected county councillors, district councils and parish councils. In that context, the Statement refers clearly to wanting to get decisions made locally. We as a party do not believe that regional development agencies are local enough and we fear that some of those decisions will not be taken with the best regard to the needs of very rural areas.
	We agree with many of the recommendations in Haskins. The Statement deals only very briefly with it. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I raise four points with him because we will not have the advantage of a Statement and questions tomorrow on the broader aspects of Haskins. So, if I may, I should like to turn to that.
	I think that we would all agree with the Haskins report that at the moment Defra is "overblown and inefficient"—I use the words of the report, not mine—and therefore there are great opportunities to make savings and better use of money, both in manpower and time, to improve services for everybody.
	We accept that rural policy must be driven by government Ministers and therefore formulated in Whitehall, but we view Defra as being overblown and inefficient. It has 12 in-house delivery agents, 15 inspectorates, six executive agencies, 20 executive non-departmental bodies, 20 non-executive non-departmental public bodies, two public corporations and representation in eight out of the nine government offices. There is definitely room for doing something about that.
	I turn to the four points I want to raise and ask the Minister to comment on them. On recommendation 16, which is the drawing up of this new integrated agency, we are very concerned that English Nature should retain its independence to advise government, whatever the government of the day may be. It is to be merged with part of the Rural Development Service and some of the Countryside Agency. That, as the Minister said, will need primary legislation. What will happen in the mean time, because obviously the agency will develop? Who will be the lead person until the new legislation comes through?
	In addition, we are told that a strategic group will be set up above those three agencies which will also include the chairs of the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. Can the Minister tell us more about that? Will he comment on why the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, did not look at the Environment Agency? It employs a lot of people and its responsibilities interact directly with those providing rural services. The Haskins report also mentions the levy-funded organisations. Will the Minister comment on those?
	Recommendation 27 refers to the whole farm approach. The Minister has clearly said as part of the Government's response to the report that it is not possible to accelerate that programme. Why is that so? What is holding us back? Is it the fact that the IT systems required to integrate those services are not in place? Alternatively, are there other reasons which were not disclosed in the Government's response? Clearly, anything that will reduce red tape, regulation, costs and the numerous on-farm visits will be welcomed by those within the farming community. Will the Minister also tell us whether the farm management plan, as proposed, will be a condition of cross-compliance or is it to be a separate issue?
	Recommendation 31 deals with the funding streams. As the Statement said, there are currently 100 schemes. The Government say that they will sweep away any unnecessary rules and regulations in the current schemes to leave just three major funding programmes. It is obviously recognised that there is a huge wastage in the current system. Will the Minister tell us how quickly those three new funding programmes will be set up?
	The Statement said that an extra £27 million will be given to the RDAs. Will the Minister confirm that that is for one year only? Will that £27 million be divided equally between the RDAs or are any priorities envisaged? Will that money be ring-fenced for rural activities, as opposed to being swallowed up by other RDA responsibilities? As the Statement refers also to rural areas, will the Minister define his interpretation of "rural" as accepted across all government departmental divisions?
	The Statement mentioned the importance of transport, of affordable housing, of broadband and of rural access. As the Minister will know, those are not uniformly available. Will there be any improvement and how soon will that be? Will the new IT systems which will be set up within the new agency and others be compatible? In other words, will they be interchangeable? We do not want information to be given and not then to be accessible.
	Finally, the Statement refers only briefly to farming. As the Minister will know, farming represents only a small proportion of rural employment, but if it is not profitable, the rural changes which the Government wish to see will not take place. Although farming is a small but vital part, will the Minister address an issue which time does not permit me to dwell on longer? Will the Government grant us the courtesy of a fuller debate on the Haskins report?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and also for having sent me the Defra document, Rural Strategy 2004, with an explanatory letter. It was very helpful to have that at the same time as the Statement. Indeed, having read the Statement, it was perhaps essential to the have the document. I may come back to that if I have time.
	First, I welcome the Statement's recognition of the vital role that local authorities play, not only as deliverers of quality services, but also as community leaders. It is important that that is recognised. However, the Statement adopted a slightly different tone from that of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—whom I am glad to see in his place today—in Recommendation 14. It states that local authorities and local partnerships should assume the main responsibility for the delivery of schemes and services to rural communities. I shall not go further into that recommendation due to lack of time, but the Statement seems to lay more emphasis on the regional development agencies, although I recognise that that was in the context of economic development.
	However, if the development is to be sustainable, the Minister will appreciate that the regional development agencies are not well-placed to undertake the local social or environmental development. For instance, they have only one rural member as of right on the board and as yet their emphasis in all regions has not been sufficiently rural.
	Secondly, the Statement mentions voluntary and community sectors with which local authorities will work closely. It goes on to say how essential they are—a sentiment with which I fully concur. It also mentions that the money for this sector will be managed by government offices. Surely, that will introduce yet another strand of funding while the statement talks of reducing the 100 strands to just three. I had cause to worry about a few inconsistencies.
	Thirdly, we welcome the integrated agency. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for initially identifying the fact that land should be managed not only for biodiversity, but also by taking into account environmental and economic issues. An integrated agency dealing with all land management issues is much better placed to do that.
	The Statement talks in specific terms about the value of our seas, coasts and rivers, but I am concerned that the integrated agency is to address only land. However, as the Statement indicates, seas, coasts and rivers are very important. The Environment Agency has specific responsibilities under the water framework directive—for example, for eels and salmon—yet English Nature is left as the marine conservation body. Will the Government consider a more coherent approach for the near-shore coastal waters and estuaries?
	The Statement makes no mention of young people. Indeed, the complete rural strategy mentions them only briefly. The Government, in the first instance, need to place a greater emphasis on the role that young people will play in retaining and developing the life of rural areas.
	The comment about affordable housing is opaque:
	"My Department will act as guardian"
	for the sustainable housing money. I find that hard to disentangle. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that the money will not be spent in urban areas? Such a comment underlines some of the proposals that are well-meaning and well-founded, but at the end of the day mean little to me. I hope that the rural strategy will mean considerably more and that while I welcome the Statement I would like far greater clarity from the Government. I would welcome a debate in the near future on some of the issues we will not have time to address today.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank both Opposition Front Benches for the guarded welcome they gave to the Statement. As regards the delivery agents, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was rather too hostile to the role of the RDAs. I know that the Conservative Party has not supported the RDAs, but they are our main economic regeneration instrument and it is important that they have a strong rural dimension. The changes implicit in the Statement and the funding channelled through the RDAs will mean that the agencies will have to pay far greater attention to the rural dimension than has previously been the case and fit it in with the overall regional perspective.
	That seems very sensible. It would not be appropriate to diffuse that concentration either by having an entirely separate rural strand or by delivering entirely through local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, envisaged a great role for the RDAs, as do we. That is not to say that local authorities will not have a role—in response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Local authorities are also important in the delivery, although probably there has been a slight change of balance in favour of the RDAs. Nevertheless, local authorities will still have a significant role.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, repeated the calumny of my noble friend Lord Haskins that Defra was overblown and inefficient. Most of those inefficiencies are already being addressed, but it is important that the core policy department is reduced in size and that the delivery section of the department is consequently brought closer to those who benefit from it. That is why part of the plan is to shift some of the delivery mechanisms out of the centre of Defra into agency status, regional delivery or local delivery. That is certainly part of our approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins.
	The noble Baroness asked what will happen before we get legislation for the creation of the integrated agency. It is important that we are clear on the lines of responsibility and that English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service—the parts that will go into the integrated agency—work together closely in the period before legislation. It will be complicated because those organisations will retain their statutory responsibilities in that period, but the three organisations are already working together very closely. It is very important that an individual is in charge of the overarching body; we will appoint someone to that role.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, both asked about the interface between the integrated agency and the Environment Agency. It will be important that the two agencies work very closely together. It was excluded primarily from the Haskins inquiry because the Environment Agency has very wide responsibilities over industry in rural and urban areas. It would not be appropriate to see the Environment Agency as solely a rural delivery agency in the way that some of the other bodies addressed were.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the whole-farm approach; we are developing it as rapidly as possible. I remember responding to a Select Committee when one of my officials had advised that it would take 10 years. I have speeded up the process substantially already; as the result of my intervention, we will now deliver it within the next couple of years. A 10-year timetable did not seem appropriate, but we need to bring all the complex systems of regulation, inspection and enforcement into line.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked what was included in cross-compliance and what was not. I am afraid that she will have to be slightly more patient: we intend to make a statement on cross-compliance very shortly. The noble Baroness also asked how the £27 million would be spent. It will be distributed between regional development agencies, not equally but according to the normal pattern of allocation.
	On the timescale for the rationalisation of funding streams, by April 2005 we will have begun the simplification of schemes. We will also have provided money to Business Links to develop advice and information for rural businesses. By April 2007, we will have completed the replacement of the 100-plus current streams by the framework of three major funds.
	The voluntary sector, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, is a very important feature of rural life that we wish to continue to nurture. The schemes that will go through the government office are those that formerly went through the Countryside Agency; they will be there for capacity building. Equivalent schemes under other funding streams will be delivered by the other agencies and through the RDAs, but the capacity-building schemes will go through the government office.
	One of the features of deprivation in rural areas is the lack of affordable housing to keep workers in such areas. It is important that we build on the substantial measures that we have already taken to alleviate housing pressures in rural areas. The Housing Corporation, the Countryside Agency, Defra and other partners are involved in looking at how we can improve the availability of affordable housing. That is one of many elements in the strategy and the new delivery system that will be beneficial to younger people in rural areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely right that young people are the future of rural areas; they need to be attracted there, kept there and given jobs in those areas. To do that, we must deal with the issue of affordable housing. That will be one of the important priorities, not delivered directly by Defra but by other government departments, that will be the proof of our commitment and also the beneficiary of tighter rural-proofing through the new Countryside Agency and the other mechanisms that we have put in place.
	I hope that I have covered most of the points made by the noble Baronesses; if not, I shall write to them.

Lord Carter: Is my noble friend aware of how welcome this long-awaited Statement is? It says that 55 per cent of households in rural areas are above the median household income. Does the Minister agree that it would have been equally helpful if the Statement had quoted the indices of rural poverty and deprivation that exist? Some years ago I was staggered to discover how many families in relatively affluent rural Wiltshire did not own a motorcar.
	We certainly welcome the streamlining of the funding streams from 100 to three. My noble friend may be aware of the danger now in rural society of large numbers of people rushing around and banging into each other, all trying to lock into the plethora of rural funding schemes.
	Obviously, there will be a transitional period for the setting up of the integrated agency, which we all welcome. My hunch is that it will be 2007 at the earliest before the agency is fully operational. Is my noble friend aware of the effect that that could have on staff morale in the agencies during the transitional period, when people will be concerned about their future? In particular, what steps will the Government take against the dilution of the expertise that exists in the agencies in the run-up to the integrated agency's coming on full stream?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's point on rural deprivation. Indeed, one of the themes of my right honourable friend's Statement was that the social problems of rural areas are not generalised; they are in certain areas and pockets within otherwise affluent areas. That is why we must have delivery mechanisms that target support more closely to the communities and industries involved.
	It is very important that we maintain both expertise and morale during the transitional period until we have fully legislated for an integrated agency. We are already engaged with the management, staff and trade unions in those organisations to ensure that people recognise the direction of the future structure and the importance of their role within it, so that we move seamlessly from three separate agencies with somewhat separate traditions and structures to one agency with a very wide range of expertise. The maintenance and enhancement of that expertise and the interaction of different levels of expertise will be among the advantages of the integrated agency.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, the Minister did not mention the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about agriculture being the profitable underpin of the whole rural scene. Will he comment on that? It is vital to a healthy rural environment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Statement makes clear that farming continues to be a focus of a large part of rural activity. A large part of that approach to land management is reflected through all the delivery mechanisms that we are talking about here. Farming is central to that delivery. It is important to recognise the changes that we have introduced in the common agricultural policy. Free farming means that farmers can pursue the most profitable means of using land to maximise return. At the same time, it delivers environmental benefits which will themselves create and maintain a countryside that attracts more visitors and more money and develops rural tourism and other rural businesses.
	Not only will that approach play the key role in ensuring a profitable and sustainable farming sector; it will contribute to the profitability of the rest of the rural economy. Our proposals recognise both those factors. The more direct and larger part of the support that the Government give to farming is, of course, through the common agricultural policy. As I indicated, I intend to make a further statement on that shortly.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I declare an interest as having been involved in the countryside all my life. Everyone seems to have welcomed the Statement. I do not welcome it for two reasons. First, its content is wholly bureaucratic. Secondly, its tone is wholly bureaucratic. The Government seem to think that they can organise the whole of the countryside, and that if they provide policies, the countryside will react to those policies. I was surprised when the noble Lord said:
	"Fresh evidence we commissioned confirms that there is relative prosperity in rural areas".
	He has only to look at what has happened to agriculture over the past seven to 10 years, and what has happened to forestry, to see that that is not so. Although he says that the profitability of farming is important, he will find that that is not what has happened.
	When the noble Lord makes these Statements, could he make them in unbureaucratic language? For instance, the Statement says:
	"The evidence shapes our approach to delivering sustainable communities and so puts a premium on policies and on delivery mechanisms that focus on that deprivation".
	What on earth does that mean? It seems most extraordinary. He went on to say:
	"I therefore intend to look at innovative mechanisms for devolving delivery even closer to rural communities".
	That might be good Civil Service speak, and everyone in the Civil Service might understand it, but ask the average person in the countryside what that means, and they will say that it is complete mumbo-jumbo.
	It is not as if it ends there, because the noble Lord went on to say:
	"This package of policy and delivery reform is aimed at delivering services in a more streamlined and customer-friendly way, through radical devolution to regional and sub-regional partners".
	That is all completely divorced from reality. People in the countryside are fed up with bureaucracy and with government intervention on every scale. Will the noble Lord see if he can try and make his Statements less bureaucratic, and if he can try to cut out such bureaucracy as there is and as is increasing in the countryside?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his textual critique of the Statement. It is pretty clear to me what it means. "Sustainability" means lasting; and one of the problems has been that we have not had lasting support. "Deprivation" means poor; and it is important that we focus the support that the State gives to rural areas on those who most need it and those industries that are most deserving of it. "Innovative" means new; in other words, we intend to provide new support systems which are more understandable and deliverable. If the terms of the Statement obscure that, there is something wrong with the Statement; but I thought that it was pretty clear.
	In relation to profitable farming, as I said in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, profitable agriculture is obviously an important part of the jigsaw. It is not, however, the main employment source of the vast majority of people who live in the countryside, or the vast majority of poor people living in the countryside. It is an important contribution to getting them out of that situation, and an important area of government support.
	With all the doom and gloom that the noble Lord referred to, it is important to recognise that, although profitability was very low three years ago, since I have been in this job the average income of farmers has increased very substantially. So he cannot blame me for it. I think that there has been a mood of greater optimism in farming. Although that is more pronounced in some sectors than in others, those sectors recognise that they have a much better future freed up from the kind of tightly written subsidies under the common agricultural policy, and now also with a broader-based system of support in the rest of the Government's rural measures.
	I do not think that people in the countryside want government to disappear from the countryside; they want government to give the kind of help that is actually useful in developing their businesses and enhancing the landscape. That is exactly what these policy changes are intended to bring.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a positive Statement which was ambitious and recognised what is to be achieved. It is to be applauded that the Government have clearly identified the major priorities of rural areas; namely rural businesses, rural communities and the rural environment. I welcome the increase in the Budget for Business Links, and I underline to my noble friend the good work of the agricultural colleges in helping diversification and entrepreneurship. On the funding streams, can my noble friend confirm that this will be a major priority of all regions?
	The Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance is a sub-regional body which is the enterprise hub of part of the north-west rural areas. The Northern Way programme helps to build on the strength of the great cities of the north, such as Manchester and Liverpool. There is concern that it might overlook the significant contribution that rural areas, such as Cheshire, make to the success of neighbouring cities. Will the Minister assure rural areas that this will not cut across delivery through the RDAs, and take full account of the need to improve infrastructure, which is so vital as a gateway to the north-west as a whole?
	Defra has been recognised in rural areas as their champion. There might well be concern that the changing structure will loosen that association. Will the Minister outline how Defra will improve its interaction with farm businesses? Concerning the rural communities, will he confirm that the delivery strategy through local government will fully appreciate the priority of affordable houses in rural areas?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already referred to the importance of affordable housing, which must be part of the wider government strategy for rural areas. On the importance of Business Links and the agricultural colleges, it is important to recognise that part of the plan is to ensure that rural businesses, farmers and others can receive advice from a single source, or at least guidance from a single source, rather than be faced with the plethora of a whole range of potential sources relating to how the Government provide help and advice to rural business. It is important that Business Links deliver a substantial part of that, but I also recognise the importance of agricultural colleges.
	As to whether RDAs concentrate too much on the cities, Liverpool and Manchester are pretty important to the economic prosperity of the north-west. However, the fact that the RDAs are now being given substantial resources and a much clearer role in rural regeneration will ensure that Cheshire and other rural areas of the north-west receive equal and mutually supportive help as well.
	As for the relationship with Defra, clearly there are a number of mechanisms by which Defra policies can be delivered. Not all of them are within the Defra family. Our most important relationship with farming businesses, and to some extent all rural businesses, is that we can provide a point of advice for the whole range of local, regional and national government schemes which will help their businesses rather than confuse them or impose too much red tape. As a result of the efforts of my noble friend Lord Haskins and our response in this Statement and elsewhere, we hope to go a long way down that road.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on whether he has any plans to do something about the stranglehold that the big stores such as Sainsbury's and Waitrose have on farmers, and the inability of farmers to fight them and to get a fair deal out of them? Unless that is tackled, farmers, particularly those with small farms—which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, says, I think are at the heart of the countryside—will find it very difficult to survive in the future.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, those farmers, with either small or large farms, who can change with the changing context in which we are operating to make themselves more market oriented and more respectful of the environment will survive. It is not a question of size; it is a question of seizing the opportunity and meeting the challenge.
	Part of that includes farmers collaborating among themselves and with other elements in the food chain to ensure that they get the highest value for their products and a fair and equitable share of the value of their products. One of the problems has been that farmers within the food chain have been too fragmented and lacking in focus, which was identified in Sir Donald Curry's report. Quite a lot of work is now being done to bring together farmers and the rest of the food chain in order to address those market issues.
	In relation to supermarkets, it is also true that the OFT is currently looking at allegations from the farming sector and others about trading practices that disadvantage small farming and processing enterprises. I look forward to the results of that.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how many job losses will occur in Defra? Where will the axe fall—or will there be job redeployment into the regions? Indeed, the integrated agency can surely work only with good, efficient and effective IT. My understanding is that the IT systems are not yet in place. When does the Minister expect them to be?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps confusing a number of different things. As regards the reduction in the total number of the Defra family, there will be two different movements. There will be a movement away from the core Defra into the delivery agencies, some of which will also be geographical as a result of the relocation.
	There will also be an absolute reduction in jobs over the coming few years, the vast majority of which are related to the improved IT system in the Rural Payments Agency, which is not of course covered by the Haskins report or the proposals today. The upgrading of IT is well on stream and should begin to deliver efficiency advantages, but it will also reduce the need for some employees. The other area of reduction of employment will be efficiency gains in various parts of the department. As I said in response to my noble friend Lord Carter, we will not be losing staff who have expertise in delivering the areas with which we are concerned today.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may say that there are things within it with which I entirely concur. I support the sentiment that rural England's natural beauty is an asset to be cherished and enhanced. The countryside provides us with the essentials of life. Will the Minister therefore impress on his colleagues in other departments that producing 20 per cent of our energy needs by the year 2020, mostly with wind power, will despoil whole areas of landscape? How can the Minister reconcile the claim that changes to the CAP,
	"will enhance the positive and reduce the negative impact of farming methods and land management on the environment",
	on the one hand, with the requirement for large-scale wind farms on shore, on the other hand?
	Is it an oversight that renewable energy—wind turbines in particular—is not mentioned in the Statement on the Rural Strategy 2004? I have not had time to examine it in detail, but can the Minister point to where that important new development in the countryside is dealt with?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount is correct that it is not referred to in this Statement. But it has been referred to in a number of different contexts in this House regarding various policies where the main opposition party has seemed obsessed with stopping wind farm development. Wind farm development will be a significant contribution towards meeting our renewable energy requirements. That will improve the environment for all of us and, provided they are properly sited and go through the proper planning processes, they can also enhance rural areas. The utter opposition of those on the Benches opposite to wind farms seems to be hugely disingenuous, the worst form of Nimbyism and not doing a service to our countryside.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, that is a slightly incorrect statement.

Lord Haskins: My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a recent report on rural delivery and as a director of the Yorkshire Regional Development Agency. I was very impressed by the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about jargon. I sympathise with him entirely. However, I recommend that he reads the report in detail. Having fought a lifetime against Whitehall jargon, I was surprised at how concise and clear that is.
	Obviously, one is pleased when 32 of one's recommendations are accepted—I shall come back to that point—but one hopes that the forces of darkness in Whitehall who do not want to let go will be persuaded to let go. Indeed, because the Government have accepted so many of my recommendations, I feel that perhaps I was not radical enough and that if I am getting too close to government there is something going wrong with me. However, if the aspirations that are in this Statement and the report are brought into reality, the Government will have done an excellent job in starting the process towards devolving power away from Whitehall to where the people are in this country.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support and endorsement of much of the phraseology of the Statement, albeit that no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has identified one or two infelicities in part of it. Most of it is fairly clear. Above all, I thank my noble friend for his original report. I certainly would not concur with anyone who said that my noble friend Lord Haskins had failed to be radical enough or—in some sense is sorry to say—that he was too close to government. But I think that he has given the Government a very clear and positive steer on this issue.
	Ultimately, the result will be better delivery, a better outcome for our rural areas, a better relationship between the various agencies of government and those who live in our countryside, and, above all, a better, more prosperous and sustainable countryside for all who live in it and visit it.

Housing Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
	Clause 9 [Consultation with fire authorities in certain cases]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 7, line 33, leave out "listed" and insert "mentioned".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that I can be brief with this group of amendments. Amendment No. 28 is a minor drafting amendment and Amendment No. 33 relates to the latest print of the Bill. Apparently, Clauses 14 and 15 are the wrong way round, as can be seen from comparing the provisions relating to prohibition orders and the headings for paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. I hope that helps anyone who did not spot it. I cannot explain how that occurred but, clearly, your Lordships' House will expect us to put it right.
	Schedules 2 sets out the procedures for the service of copies of prohibition orders, for the service of notices relating to revocation or variation orders and for appeals against orders. They are technical amendments intended to ensure that the categories of person on whom copies of orders must be served and who may appeal against orders do not overlap.
	Finally, government Amendment No. 57 rectifies an omission and clarifies the time at which the sum demanded, if not recovered, becomes a local land charge. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: Can the Minister explain what is the legal difference between the words "listed" and "mentioned"? I do not want to be pedantic, but there appear to be quite clear lists set out in Clauses 5(2) and 7(2), so I cannot understand why the word "listed" is to be replaced with the word "mentioned". That word suggests something that comes and goes while "listing" is more permanent.
	Perhaps we could start the day in the way we mean to go on with a quiet and clear explanation from the Minister of the reasoning behind this amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will be a very quiet explanation because I do not have one. I am intrigued by the desire of the noble Baroness to focus on Amendment No. 28. As I have said, it is a minor drafting amendment. In essence I think it has been tabled because we prefer the word "mentioned". I take the point that the word "listed" may sound crisp, but "mentioned" sounds more friendly to me.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Contents of improvement notices]:

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 10, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) Any construction works, undertaken as part of the remedial action specified in the improvement notice, shall benefit from a 5% reduced rate of VAT."

Baroness Maddock: The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the rate of VAT on construction work undertaken after an improvement notice. I gave notice to the Minister that I could have tabled this amendment to a number of other clauses in the Bill, but I want principally to raise the importance of this issue if we are concerned with improving the poor condition of many of our homes.
	VAT on domestic repairs affects many of the poorest in our society. This has been shown by figures gathered by the English House Condition Survey. In the European context, this amendment would be consistent with Annex H of the Sixth VAT Directive because a reduced rate of VAT would then be available for housing as part of a housing policy, which is the important point. The Government did agree to an extension of the reduced rate experiment under Annex K of the Sixth VAT Directive, and therefore they seem to be in favour of a reduced rate of VAT for domestic building work—at least in principle.
	The renovation of non-decent homes could greatly benefit from a reduction in VAT. The average cost of renovating a non-decent property is estimated at something over £7,000 excluding VAT. If VAT is charged at the standard rate, it adds something in the order of £1,200 to the total repair bill. If the rate of VAT were reduced to 5 per cent, the tax bill would fall by approximately £360 per property, considerably reducing the total cost of the repair. The difference suggests that for the renovation of every eight non-decent properties, one more property could be brought up to an adequate standard if we had a reduced rate of VAT.
	VAT falls disproportionately on the poor. For a poor household with a monthly disposable income of only a few hundred pounds, adding £140 of VAT on to an £800 home repair job makes a significant difference. In some cases it will probably decide whether the repair is carried out. In complete contrast to the argument presented in the Barker review, it is often VAT that keeps the poor from being able to afford to carry out essential repairs. The findings of the English House Condition Survey show that substandard housing is concentrated in deprived areas, which strongly supports my view.
	Present VAT policy on housing repair work, coupled with recent changes to local authority grant funding for poor and vulnerable households, is likely to prevent essential housing repairs being carried out. This is likely further to undermine the condition of the existing housing stock. It also does nothing for social inclusion by widening the gap between economically well-to-do and deprived localities.
	I am grateful to the National Home Improvement Council, of which I am a vice-president, and the Federation of Master Builders, which I should say is putting together quite a campaign on this issue, for their briefing. Indeed, I could talk about this for a considerable time. However, as I mentioned in our debate yesterday, some three-quarters of all properties in the private sector do not meet decent home standards, and it would cost something like £40 billion for them to do so.
	If the Government are serious about decent home targets and serious about the condition of many of our private sector properties, we need to do something about VAT. That must make sense. While it is not easy, I think that it is possible. I should be interested to find out where the Government stand on this matter. Although they understand the problem, it is clear that they are concerned about the knock-on effects. However, given the important issues being addressed in this Bill, such as disrepair and the effort to improve housing standards, this amendment would go a long way to help. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: I would like to support this amendment. In doing so I declare a pecuniary interest as the owner of a good quality house, built in the 1880s, but which is now in need of some £10,000 worth of ordinary running repairs. That is not an uncommon situation. Although I have a pecuniary interest, I believe myself to be speaking in the public interest, although that is a matter for the Committee to judge.
	The case has been made many times before. I first encountered it as far back as 1965 when Lord Kennett was at the Ministry of Housing. The ministry commissioned a study in Rochdale, known as the Deeplish study. It found a very high proportion of old houses that were basically good and sound, many of them capable of lasting a lot longer than houses built during the 1930s. The study concluded that if you wanted to house more people, repairing the existing houses and keeping them in a good state of repair was much better value for money than pulling them down or allowing them to fall into an unsightly mess, and then building new ones. I see no reason to believe that that analysis has ceased to be true.
	One can observe around any big town that the older houses are very much more reliable. The Victorians built houses to last, but they do not last without ordinary, standard maintenance. Of all the things from which people may be deterred by financial disinducements, repairing their homes comes high on the list. The costs are often considerable, usually unknown, and builders do not always keep to their estimates. It is very easy, for someone for whom money is tight, simply to leave their house unrepaired and let it deteriorate. However, when they do that, they are wasting a public asset, which is to the detriment of the whole public.
	It then becomes necessary to build new houses, taking up more land and destroying green fields—which are not in that plentiful a supply—while leaving behind an unsightly mess in the old place. I do not believe that to be in the public interest. So, if we can diminish the disincentive of VAT on bills to repairing one's house, it would be in the public interest. I understand that that can be squared with the EU directive—I take other people's word on that—and I hope that the Minister can enlighten me further.
	If we want to house more people at less cost and to do so comfortably, without all the upheaval of moving and without all the estate agents' commission, this seems to me a good, sensible, cost benefit-suitable way of doing it. I am happy to support the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a probing amendment designed to draw attention to the cost of repairs and the way in which reduced VAT could, in some circumstances, help deal with improvement and repair, but there are implications in giving this activity the benefit of a 5 per cent VAT rating.
	There is no doubt that reducing VAT on property repair and maintenance would encourage the improvement and repair of property, but it would come at a considerable cost—estimates from the Exchequer suggest that it would be some £700 million a year—and it would have the perverse effect of subsidising those who have the resources to make repairs and improvements to their homes themselves. The responsibility for improving and repairing private sector homes primarily rests, as is obvious, with the owner. Government support must be targeted to those who do not have the necessary resources to do the work themselves and who are at risk from living in poor conditions. In our estimation, this measure would not go very far towards helping that group of people.
	The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, in any event, gave local authorities wide powers to provide assistance to vulnerable owners and tenants to repair and improve their properties—for example, through grants, loans, or more practical measures such as the provision of materials and labour. It provides authorities with the flexibility to devise tailor-made solutions that address the problems and priorities they face with poor condition property in their localities. We have allocated an additional £30 million in both 2004–05 and 2005–06 through the regional housing boards to boost local authorities' use of those powers. I am conscious that we will debate further home information packs, but it is perhaps worth reminding the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that a home condition report will make a real difference on property conditions, including measures to improve and assist energy efficiency.
	We will make real inroads into the issue of disrepair in the private sector only if home owners take more responsibility for the condition of their home. Our aim is to help those who are least able to help themselves; for others, we need to raise awareness of the importance of these matters generally. That is where the home condition reports will be of considerable importance.
	The other issue with the amendment is the question of how the reduction would be applied. How would it work practically? What evidence would a person have to produce to justify a 5 per cent VAT rating? Who would produce the evidence—the person served with the notice or the contractor? This is a probing amendment and does not deal with any of those hard-nosed, practical questions, but this is a hard-nosed practical issue and, while I understand the interest of those who have moved the amendment, I believe that, at the very least, some further thought and reflection is needed on its practical application and how it will work. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell: No doubt, the amendment requires further thought, but I cannot help feeling that the answer requires further thought also. The Minister said it would cost a great deal—yes, it would—but the important question is not how much it will cost but whether it will cost more or less than the alternatives.
	The Government know that building new houses, with all the attendant confusion of planning permission, is a very expensive process—and we have a considerable net shortage of housing. So the alternatives are either to repair property that is at present perfectly habitable or to build new property. I do not think there is much question about which is the cheaper of those alternatives.
	The Minister is right to say that nothing will be done until home owners are prepared to take responsibility for their own properties. The object of the amendment is to ensure that they shall not be deterred from so doing when they wish to do so. An extra 17.5 per cent on a four-figure bill is a considerable sum in most people's budget. People who are on the kind of margins on which most ordinary people live react to such costs at the margin. We are suggesting that the Government should simply refrain from deterring people from taking responsibility where they are willing to do so.
	I do not think it is any use quoting deliberate and ad hoc grants, well intentioned though they may be. I am sure we all understand quite how little most of our fellow citizens—and, indeed, many of us—know about what the Government are actually doing in detail. If I went to my next-door neighbour and told him about this £30 million two-year scheme, I do not think—even though he is a builder and careful of his house—that he would know anything about it. Such schemes must be known before they can act as an incentive.
	That is why we need a general rule. The Minister said: "To what should it apply?". I think the criterion is that it should apply to repairs. It is perfectly easy to distinguish a repair from an addition; it is perfectly easy to distinguish a repair from ornamentation; it is far easier than the kind of judgments that the courts make day by day.
	So, before the Minister dismisses the amendment out of hand, he should consider the alternatives and whether they will get him into more trouble than this does. I hope that that thought will be productive.

Baroness Maddock: I am grateful for the support of my noble friend. The Minister criticised the amendment on several grounds with regard to how it would work. I thought I had made it fairly obvious when I moved the amendment that if I was serious about the Government accepting it and incorporating it into the Bill, it would not have been in this form.
	People are interested in improvement and repair in general, and the Government should look at the issue of VAT. Indeed, the Minister referred to costs of £700 million a year. What cost-benefit analysis have the Government carried out on this issue? When I consider the problems caused for the health service by people who live in poor, cold and damp homes, I cannot totally accept what the Minister said about that.
	At the moment, new house building enjoys zero-rated VAT, but for repair, maintenance and improvement work it is 17.5 per cent. I explained how that affects those who are the least well-off in our society—and, again, I do not accept the Minister's criticism on that issue.
	It is important to note that a reduced rate of VAT on improvement and repair work would not interfere with new house building. In fact, it would probably reduce the pressure on land and industry. We shall discuss the issue of new properties, I hope, later in the Bill.
	I agree that zero-rated VAT on new house building is necessary if the Government want to realise an expansion of the housing supply, as they have indicated they do. However, supporting new housing with fiscal incentives while penalising the upkeep of existing housing goes against the principles of sustainability. As my noble friend said, ultimately it is counter-productive to the economy as a whole. I hope that the Government will keep this issue at the forefront of their agenda because it supports much of what they want to do in their housing policy.
	I made clear when I moved the amendment that I did not expect the Government to accept it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Suspension of improvement notices]:

Lord Harris of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 29A:
	Page 10, line 17, after "improvement" insert "or repair"

Lord Harris of Haringey: In moving Amendment No. 29A, I shall speak to a series of other amendments, the substantive elements of which are Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B. There are clearly a number of consequential amendments, not all of which are being moved in this block on the advice of the Clerk that it would clutter up the Marshalled List.
	The purpose of the amendments, which is very simple, is to seek to ensure that existing local authority powers to tackle directly substantial disrepair in private rented housing continue. As I understand it, the Bill repeals local authority powers under Section 190(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 to tackle substantial disrepair. The point made in the amendments is that the power is important to complement the housing health and safety rating system—HHSRS—powers. They would not supersede those duties, and when an authority had a duty under the HHSRS legislation, that duty would remain. But in some circumstances, the substantial disrepair powers are an invaluable option to address disrepair in private housing. Of course, they would assist in enabling the meeting of the decent homes targets for owned housing. Substantial disrepair powers would be a cost-effective addition to HHSRS powers—by, for example, avoiding repeat inspections.
	The existing substantial disrepair powers enable local authorities to do things that are not possible under the HHSRS powers. In particular, under the substantial disrepair powers, which would disappear under this Bill but be reinstated to some extent by the amendments, local authorities can, after an inspection, request preventive action prior to deterioration when a defect becomes a hazard.
	I have seen legal advice from Jan Luba QC, who I understand is the author of a standard text book on private sector disrepair, that those actions would not be possible under the HHSRS powers—that they do not allow that. That point brings us back to the debate that we have just been having about what is cost-effective under some circumstances. If local authorities do not have the power to intervene to prevent the deterioration of a property when a defect is at a fairly early stage, it could very soon become a major health and safety hazard, and the cost of dealing with it would be very much higher.
	Also under the substantial disrepair powers, local authorities can ask for longer lasting works to avoid repeat inspections a year or so later. Again, the advice that I have seen suggests that without this amendment that would be possible only in category 1 hazards. The amendment would therefore widen the power to avoid repeat inspections and increased costs.
	The substantial disrepair powers also permitted local authorities to ask for disrepair to be tackled on a range of items that are specifically not addressed under the HHSRS provisions. Those include perished external renderings, failed pointing or sills, and woodworm and dry rot that has not yet weakened the timber. In the spirit of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I should declare an interest, having recently discovered some dry rot in the house where I live. The items also include old electrical wiring that is not yet a fire or electrocution hazard but clearly could become so in future or fairly soon; external disrepair that does not already cause dampness or the risk of falling elements; and loose wall tiling and unkeyed wall plaster on solid walls. Those are all items that will not be covered without the amendment being passed.
	The simple point is that substantial disrepair powers cover defects which are not hazards and do not fall under the HHSRS powers, but remedying such defects would contribute to meeting the decent homes standard, which recognises the need to address disrepair likely to lead to structural failure or future hazards.
	I would not wish to impugn my noble friend the Minister with unfortunate motives, but it looks as if the Government are setting local authorities a target for private sector decent homes and, at the same time, taking away an important power to help to deliver those standards.
	It is also important to recognise that substantial disrepair powers are essential to achieve the upgrading of the rundown neighbourhoods envisaged in the area renewal powers. I understand that the London borough of Newham, for instance, is very concerned that the removal of the substantial disrepair powers will greatly detract from the effectiveness of the urban renewal in Forest Gate, which is part of a SRB funding project worth £20 million. If by removing the substantial disrepair powers we undermine the effectiveness of major regeneration projects, that is surely a false economy and not very helpful. It obviously has widespread implications for area renewal in low-demand areas. I understand that the ODPM Select Committee has also expressed concern about the abolition of those Section 190 powers. Under those circumstances, I find it slightly surprising that the Bill envisages their abolition.
	If repealing the powers to tackle disrepair in Section 190 would adversely impact on local authority powers to secure the improvement of quality of housing, why are we doing this? The substantial disrepair powers that currently exist but would be removed by the Bill and reinstated by the amendment can be a cost-effective option that local authorities may wish to choose. In practice, they are invaluable for achieving decent homes in private rented housing. They are essential for private sector housing area renewal—and they complement and do not override duties under the new HHSRS powers. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's remarks, but I understand that there is some difference of opinion among environmental health officers in particular about whether such powers as he has described are needed. Some of those people are concerned that a parallel system of regulation could divert local authorities' attention away from the needs of occupiers towards the repairing of dwellings. Both are important, but the one important thing about the new system is that it is actually concerned with what is happening to the people as well.
	There are concerns, however, that the housing health and safety rating system—gosh, we should be able to say that well by the end of the passage of the Bill—does not as currently proposed address all aspects of decent home standards. That is what the noble Lord has just said, and was something that we discussed yesterday, when he may not have been present. The Government's target of increasing the proportion of vulnerable people living in decent homes will not be effective unless local authorities have the power to compel reluctant landlords to carry out necessary works.
	I look forward to the Minister's response. We have a bit of a problem here, but we need to think carefully about how the two systems would run together.

Lord Rooker: At the beginning of the noble Baroness's speech, I said to myself, "She has got my notes". Unfortunately, I shall have to elaborate.
	As my noble friend made clear, the group of amendments includes two new clauses, which are basically designed to retain the powers in Section 190 of the Housing Act 1985, in a modified form, together with some consequential amendments.
	I know that key housing bodies support the replacement with the housing health and safety rating system—and I shall quote a few of them in a moment. We also know that some concerns have been expressed by a small number of stakeholders about the repeal of Section 190.
	The purpose of the section was, as my noble friend said, to enable local authorities to deal with properties that were not unfit but needed substantial repairs to bring them up to reasonable standard. The housing health and safety rating system makes a significant difference to the position under fitness. Although HHSRS still has a threshold, it is not the same as the threshold between unfitness and fitness. Part 1 of the Bill gives powers and duties to authorities to deal with all hazards, however serious and however minor. Disrepair may feature in any hazard—the amendment overlooks this, which is a fundamental oversight.
	The amendments would remove reference to fitness, but do not acknowledge the hazard rating system. Therefore, any retention of Section 190 in the terms of the amendments would seriously overlap with the new housing health and safety rating system on the treatment of disrepair and would, as the noble Baroness said, provide an alternative route for dealing with it. We are confident that the housing health and safety rating system will enable local authorities to take action to deal with properties needing repair, whether substantial or otherwise, and will be an invaluable tool in area renewal.
	It is clear that disrepair is capable of contributing to hazards that can be tackled under the housing health and safety rating system. Hazards from structural failure, fire, cold, falls, asbestos and electrical faults are set out in version 2 of the guidance and illustrate the kinds of disrepair that can give rise to these hazards and against which authorities will have either a duty or a wide discretionary power to take action.
	We take local authority concerns seriously. The Bill has been around a long time, and we have consulted about the new system, but evidence that substantial disrepair would be left unattended following action against either category 1 or category 2 hazards has so far been absent from the debate over disrepair powers.
	I must make it absolutely clear that the housing health and safety rating system enables authorities to go beyond simply removing a category 1 hazard. Clause 10(5) states that remedial action must, at a minimum, ensure the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard and that it may extend beyond such action. There is discretion for the authority to deal with a category 1 hazard. Authorities also have wide discretion to deal with all category 2 hazards. We intend to issue the final draft of the version 2 guidance later this summer. Alongside it, we will issue updated worked examples that illustrate the kind of deficiencies that give rise to category 1 and category 2 hazards.
	Retention of the Section 190 powers in anything like these amendments would undermine the housing health and safety rating system, although I am sure that this is not my noble friend's intention. Bodies such as the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, as well as the British Medical Association, are in favour of the principle of the housing health and safety rating system. I doubt that they would want to see a parallel regime that undermines it and causes confusion.
	Some authorities—I suspect that they are London authorities—have been concerned over the issue of disrepair that does not contribute to any hazards. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health suggested that we provide in the Bill that remedial works should ensure that hazards do not recur for a given number of years. We have no problem with that in principle, but we do not need to amend the Bill to achieve that. We are willing to look at clarifying in the enforcement guidance that, in dealing with hazards, local authorities can use their discretion where they are concerned about future deterioration and want to ensure that works are carried out to a good and lasting standard. That discretion includes consideration not only of when something is likely to happen but also of the consequences when it happens.
	There might be a question of whether any defects might remain in a property once all category 1 and category 2 hazards had been dealt with. If some defects remain, they are likely to be minor, and it must be open to question whether, together, they would require substantial remedial works—whatever "substantial" means. As to the standard to which any works would be carried out, we are not sure what the standard would be. In this House and in the other place, we are aware of the criticism that the housing health and safety rating system deals with individual hazards and not the whole house. The safety rating system will take account of defects contributing to all hazards, wherever they occur in a dwelling. We debated that yesterday when we discussed the vicinity of a dwelling. Some hazards can only be assessed in relation to the whole house, for example, fire is a whole-house hazard. Equally, a major hazard such as risk of structural collapse would be regarded as relating to the whole of the property.
	As the noble Baroness said, we debated the decent home standard yesterday. It is not a mandatory standard, with the exception of the fitness element that is in the future safety rating system. We do not support making the decent home standard as a whole an enforcement standard. That would bring millions of dwellings within its scope, often for reasons that are not health and safety-related and that is a key justification in human rights legislation for intervention in people's property and homes. Given the attention paid to the Bill in scrutiny of regulatory impact and human rights, noble Lords might want to know what is meant by some of the issues such as "state of disrepair", "substantial repairs" and "reasonable standard". If those concepts are addressed outside of the housing health and safety rating system, it is legitimate to ask what they mean and how arbitrary judgments would be avoided. Yesterday, we discussed the fact that these are professional judgments based on risk, calculations and measurements. They are not arbitrary judgments but are the professional judgments of environmental health officers.
	My noble friend has raised legitimate matters. However, this amendment would not fit in the Bill. We do not think that some of the major concerns expressed by some authorities are justified because they still have the discretion, even within the new system, to carry out the works to which my noble friend referred. We will look at the guidance—I mean what I said—to strengthen it so that there cannot be any doubt about that, but we do not need to do it in the Bill. The guidance will have the necessary effect.

Earl Russell: While the Minister was talking, it struck me that the amendments were framed in terms of compulsion, whereas Amendment No. 29, in the name of my noble friend Lady Maddock, was concerned with permissive action to allow people to do what they wanted to do. There is necessarily a place for compulsion, but it is an unpleasant, expensive and labour-intensive process that will not become easier while the Chancellor is engaged in reducing the number of civil servants. So where something can be done voluntarily and compulsion rendered unnecessary, it is a good thing. It is somewhat illogical to introduce a disincentive to do something immediately followed by a compulsion to do it. That is not letting the left hand know what the right hand doeth.

Lord Rooker: I do not accept the noble Earl's logic. We live in a property-owing democracy. People are responsible. They freely enter into owner-occupation and are responsible for the asset they own. I do not see that it is a disincentive that they have to pay VAT. I accept that sometimes the effects of the tax system seem to contradict other parts of policy. The noble Baroness mentioned a good example that we can come on to later in the debate about the construction of new properties on greenfield and brownfield sites. It is quite clear that the policy is construction on brown fields first and green fields second; yet, they are on a level playing field for taxation purposes, and everyone knows that it is cheaper to build on green fields. We have regular discussions with our colleagues in the Treasury about these issues, which were floated in the Barker review. It is not as though this is the way we deal with it and this is the only chance we get. There are ongoing discussions about these issues.

Lord Harris of Haringey: The noble Earl has slightly complicated the issue that I wanted to have illuminated by this amendment. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the offer he has made to look at the form in which guidance will be given. It is particularly important that the issue of potential hazards is addressed. The Minister is clearly an able detective because he somehow guessed that some of the concerns were emanating from London local authorities. The concern of some local authorities is that they will be bereft of powers that they need to tackle issues where there are defects that have some degree of hazard but are not yet so major that a local authority feels it can properly intervene or where a local authority can see that there is going to be deterioration over time. They are not confident that a voluntary system will work, which is why they require these powers.
	An example has been drawn to my attention of a property in Harrow Road in E6. This is a rented property where the entire back addition is subject to extensive subsidence. Although immediate health hazards could be addressed through patch and bodge methods, the work would only need to be repeated at regular intervals thus increasing the costs. The landlord has failed to come up with a plan to address the current failings and so the local authority concerned is likely to use the existing powers to require the demolition of the back addition and complete rebuilding to provide modern kitchen and bathroom facilities. At the end of that work the property would, of course, be fully compliant with the decent home standard. I hear what my noble friend says about not making that mandatory. However, the concern of that local authority is that those works would not be possible under the present Housing Bill. All that would be possible under the present Housing Bill would be a series of fairly minor actions to remedy the immediate hazards rather than the potential long-term hazards. The extra costs associated with that are, I think, clear and important.
	I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at what form of guidance can be given to address the potential hazards and the more holistic issues that I have just described in terms of the property in E6. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill he will have been able to give us rather more detail on how that guidance might address this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 29B not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 10, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 are grouped and are consequential upon each other. Amendment No. 30 is consequential upon the other two as it would remove the relevant timescale.
	The aim of this important series of amendments is to build into the legislation a range of measures to protect landlords from the behaviour of irresponsible tenants where a notice is served. Amendment No. 31 is designed to clarify the position of landlords who are faced with obstructive or unco-operative tenants. It would be unwise for any of us to assume that that does not and could not happen. Under our amendment the landlord would not be liable for incomplete work, or being unable to undertake any of the work in the notice, if he was prevented from doing so by the tenants.
	Amendment No. 32 attempts to clarify the status of improvement notices should the property revert from multiple to single occupation. This is to ensure that if a notice were issued to complete improvement work but the state of the property were to change in the interim—that is, should the landlord cease to rent out the property and decide to change it, say, to single occupancy—the authority could issue a fresh notice that was applicable to the property under its new status, and the status of the original improvement notice would be revised.
	There are two elements to the amendments: first, where you have an unco-operative tenant who makes it almost impossible for the improvement work to be carried out; and, secondly, where the status of the property changes and the landlord is faced with an improvement notice but is about to undertake work to bring the house back into single occupation. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: If I may, I shall deal with Amendment No. 31 first as it is the main amendment.
	Concerns were expressed in Committee in the other place about a tenant who may fail to co-operate with a landlord in the carrying out of remedial work required under an improvement notice. We can see why some may take the view that in those circumstances the improvement notice should be suspended until such time as the occupier allows the work to proceed or the landlord acquires vacant possession. However, we would be very reluctant to agree to a provision that relieves the person on whom the improvement notice is served of the responsibility for complying with it even if he or she is obstructive as regards carrying out the necessary remedial works.
	There are two issues involved in this. First, an improvement notice that is suspended contains the conditions relating to the suspension; in other words, it is suspended for reasons that the local authority has already taken into account following its assessment of the hazard and its possible impact on the occupiers. Secondly, it cannot be in anyone's interest that the enforcement action which the authority will have embarked upon for good reason—an authority does not do this lightly—should be deferred simply because the person on whom the notice is served has run into some difficulty.
	We are not altogether unsympathetic. However, while Clause 29 makes it an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice that has come into operation in any proceedings, it is a defence that the person on whom the notice was served had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. In our view we must get the balance right. We need to bear in mind that the improvement notice has been served in order to deal with a hazard from which people—in most cases those occupying the premises—need protection.
	As regards Amendment No. 32, the whole point of Clause 14 is that it enables a local authority to revoke an improvement notice. In the case of a notice served in response to a category 1 hazard, the authority may revoke that notice only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances which make it appropriate to revoke the notice. In the case of a notice served in response to a category 1 hazard in a house in multiple occupation, the local authority might well come to the view that reversion of the premises to a single household occupancy amounts to special circumstances. That would relieve the pressure on the occupier. There is a legal view on this but it is common sense that it is no longer a house in multiple occupation if it is occupied by a single family.
	We cannot agree that Amendment No. 30 is needed. I accept what the noble Baroness said about its purpose but the intention appears to be that the operative date for the commencement of remedial works should not fall from 28 days to 21 when the suspension of a notice comes to an end. However, the owner does not need 28 days as he will already know about the notice and does not need as long to prepare the works. As I say, the central issue is that of tenants interfering with work to the property. However, the fact is that the work is more than likely intended to protect those people. We must get the balance right here.

Baroness Hanham: I hear what the Minister says. I am most concerned with Amendment No. 31 because I can see that the Minister sees some merit in Amendment No. 32 although I am not sure that he will accept it.
	Amendment No. 31 concerns specifically the situation where you have a hazard of an obstructive tenant. We are talking about category 1 hazards. You may have a category 1 hazard of a tenant who is not prepared to allow works to go ahead. There may be umpteen reasons why that might not happen but equally there may be reasons why it would happen. Anyone who has anything to do with property knows that from time to time people come to very different views on what should be done to the property in which they live. It seems to me that the whole onus is still on the landlord to carry out the works in the face of obstruction. Such a situation renders it almost impossible for landlords to comply with the notice.
	We need an escape clause here. I accept that both the amendments that I am discussing constitute escape clauses for the landlord which, judging from what the Minister said, I am not sure that the Government are happy to accept. In all fairness it is right that the landlord, if he cannot get the works done, has a reason for the notice to be suspended—there would have to be very clear and justifiable reasons—and the local authority would have to recognise that reason. On the other hand, if there is not something in the Bill that allows that, no exceptions will be allowed. That also counts where a house ceases to be in multiple occupation after the notice has been served, and where the landlord may have vacant possession for some reason—one hopes, legally—and would ultimately be left with a house for which they put in planning permission.
	In the light of my words about an escape clause, is the Minister happy to review the matter? If not, I would feel strongly about it.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I was not clear. I do not have a barrister's brief on the matter, but I was more or less saying that Amendment No. 32 is not necessary. That is because the local authority is allowed to revoke the improvement notice only if it is satisfied that special circumstances make that appropriate. If the dwelling has reverted from a house in multiple occupation to a single-family dwelling, those are special circumstances. Amendment No. 32 is not needed as the matter is more or less covered. I am happy to get legal opinion on that, because the local authority would see it as common sense that the house would not be in multiple occupation.
	So far as concerns Amendment No. 31, life is full of people who will not co-operate or who have an axe to grind, but there are penalties in Clause 205 for obstruction. Of course, there is a defence for the person who fails to comply if he has a reasonable excuse. We might need to bear that in mind. I am happy to try to clarify the matter again. We feel that we have to get a balance in respect of not withdrawing a notice simply because there is a stroppy, destructive or obstructive tenant. There are penalties for obstruction, which could be used in the circumstances described.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that explanation and accept what he says about Amendment No. 32. However, it is still our view that there should be an escape clause, as provided in Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 136.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Revocation and variation of improvement notices]:
	[Amendments Nos. 31A and 32 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Transpose Clause 14 to after Clause 15.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 34 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B not moved.]
	Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Contents of prohibition orders]:
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 15, line 13, after "persons" insert "as identified by the local housing authority"

Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 merely seek to bring greater clarity to what are at present vague descriptions of the terms under use. The amendments are perhaps not as serious as others but are none the less designed to aid the legislative process. If the Minister can give us a strong assurance today then we shall happily not return to them.
	Amendment No. 36 would ensure that the local authority identified the property in question to which people could not return. It might have been better if the amendment had been inserted after the word "premises" in line 12, but the amendment is still clear. Although this may be the present intention, the Bill does not say so.
	Amendment No. 37 attempts to bring a little transparency to the process. "Particular descriptions of persons" does not seem to be a suitably adequate term for the possible issuing of a prohibition order that would effectively bar someone from what is, or possibly had been, their home. I should welcome the Minister's assurance on these matters and seek to have line 14 include "specific individuals", rather than the vaguer term. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should start with a few words of background to Clause 21. It sets out the mandatory contents of prohibition orders. The order must set out the nature of the hazard, the category into which it falls, the deficiency giving rise to it and the remedial action which, if carried out, would result in the revocation of the prohibition order by the local authority.
	An order may prohibit the use of part or all of the premises for some or all purposes unless approved by the local authority, or occupation of the premises or part of them by a particular number of households or occupants, or by particular descriptions of persons, unless approved by the authority. That is how we see the clause working.
	The amendments would appear to be intended to enable an authority to identify particular individuals for the purpose of prohibiting them from residential premises—although the noble Baroness put us right on that. The second amendment removes the possibility that descriptions of persons could be prohibited by an order. The amendments appear to be intended to enable authorities to use prohibition orders under Part 1 to identify specific individuals, perhaps with a view to preventing occupation by particular individuals who are thought to be likely to engage in anti-social behaviour. That was one thought we had regarding the proposed change of wording. If that was the intention of the noble Baroness, I cannot see that it would fall within the scope of Part 1 of the Bill, which primarily addresses concerns about housing conditions and the means by which hazards arising from deficiencies can be assessed and mitigated rather than the condition of certain individuals in a particular house.
	The amendments also fail to take account of the basis on which an order has been made and why it may be necessary to prohibit particular classes of occupants. The assessment may or will have identified a hazard that cannot be removed by an improvement notice. It may therefore be necessary for the authority to prohibit occupation by those groups of people most vulnerable to the hazard—perhaps the elderly or young children.
	It should be remembered that the purpose of prohibition orders is to protect people and households from the hazards to which they are vulnerable. These amendments appear to our way of thinking to turn that purpose on its head. While we understand that the noble Baroness wants to bring greater precision through the amendment, we believe that it would cause obfuscation.
	In practice, an authority will not choose to remove current occupants, thereby possibly creating a rehousing issue for itself, unless the hazard poses an immediate risk. It might suspend the order until it is triggered by a chance of tenancy. Those are the sorts of issues that can be dealt with more precisely in enforcement guidance. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: I said at the outset that I was seeking to bring greater clarity to the clause through the amendment. I am not sure whether the Minister's response helped in that regard. It has slightly obfuscated what I was trying to do.
	I turn to the identification of the "occupation of the premises" and the premises to be identified by the local authority. I make it clear that the prohibition would be brought about on a property identified by the local authority as the property in question, but perhaps that is not necessary. Paragraph (b) states,
	"occupation of the premises or part by particular descriptions of persons".
	Our approach involves the phrase "specific individuals".
	Most properties are lived in by not a great number of people. I am not sure what "a particular description of persons" means. The Minister suggested that my amendment might involve a person associated with anti-social behaviour. However, that is not what this is all about. If there is a prohibition notice and one is effectively stopping people from living in a property, even for a short time, what would be a "particular description" of a person? Would it be that the person opposite had only one leg or was a mother with a pram? Particular descriptions appear to involve a group, but if one had to identify specific individuals one would have to name them and say, "Those people cannot live here" for whatever reason. I believe that our amendment is better but I hear what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Suspension of prohibition orders]:
	[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Revocation and variation of prohibition orders]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 17, line 18, at end insert ", or
	(c) on an application made by the Member of Parliament for that district"

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 39 would allow a local Member of Parliament effectively to petition the local authority to revoke or vary a prohibition order. The final decision would still be left with the local authority. However, it is possible that a Member of Parliament, following significant discussion with his or her constituents, would feel hard pressed not to do something to follow up their concerns.
	I would imagine that such an action would be used very sparingly as a matter of last resort. The Member of Parliament in question would no doubt have taken due care and time to investigate the case before deciding on such a course of action. None the less, perhaps the Minister should give some thought to that, because it would improve the linkages between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituents. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: This appears to involve a somewhat unprecedented position, but that may not be so. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give some examples of other cases. Otherwise, it appears to be rather de trop because the local authority will be close to the ground on the matter and its initiative can have that result. I am not sure what else is needed.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am glad to echo the noble Lord's comments. This is a very peculiar amendment. I am all for Members of Parliament being thoroughly involved in constituency affairs. However, this is properly a housing authority matter and therefore a local government matter. At least, if we are to get into the question of local representations, one would have expected that local councillors would make representations on the issue. Frankly, it is hardly proper to put a Member of Parliament in such a privileged position in such a case.
	I do not say that because I have anything personal against Members of Parliament; they are very worthy and honourable people and do very good jobs on behalf of their constituents. However, the amendment would give them too direct a right of intervention in affairs that are properly dealt with by a democratic authority that is specifically empowered to deal with the matter. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment or, if she intends to do something with it, that she will bring it back later with a proper mention of local democratic representatives. However, I suspect that the Minister will say that the whole approach is unnecessary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is dangerous territory indeed—the amendment has provoked internecine warfare on the Benches opposite and there have been claims from our Back Benches that there is no precedent for the approach. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. My notes say that it is not quite clear what additional wisdom would be brought to the professional judgment of a local authority's environmental health officer by having a local Member of Parliament who is able to do that. I am not sure that I should go too far down that road; that might upset someone. I certainly would not want to upset many of my friends in another place. I have to be very careful with my noble friend Lord Rooker on the Front Bench; he spent many honourable years in another place and knows what it is to be a Member of Parliament representing his constituents, which he did very effectively.
	The proposal is unprecedented and this is a rather strange amendment. In any event, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right: this issue is probably more properly located with a local councillor. However, elected Members of Parliament are of course bound to make representations on behalf of constituents on particular issues. No doubt they would do so in any event by way of constituency casework. I do not believe that the amendment adds anything in practice. It is unnecessary and it would end up putting the local Member of Parliament in a rather difficult position from time to time when he or she was pressed by a constituent and he or she had to make a judgment. This is an extremely unwise departure from the accepted practice of simply making representations. Having heard that, I hope that the noble Baroness will think again and withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: This amendment is not going anywhere with either side of the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 24 agreed to.
	Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Procedure and appeals relating to prohibition orders]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
	Page 179, line 32, leave out "entitled or"
	Page 180, line 8, leave out "entitled or"
	Page 184, line 5, leave out "entitled or"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Offence of failing to comply with improvement notice]:
	[Amendments Nos. 42A to 42D not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 20, line 14, leave out "reasonable" and insert "genuinely adequate"

Lord Hanningfield: With Amendment No. 43 we are again trying to probe the Government on what they actually mean in their description of "reasonable excuse" when it comes to failing to comply with an improvement notice.
	It seems that in theory every excuse could in one way or another be described as "reasonable". We would of course welcome the Minister's thoughts on that. Furthermore, who will actually judge what is reasonable? Will it be the local authority, where one view of reasonableness may change from place to place? Surely it would have been sensible to issue some national guidance on this. Perhaps the Government are planning to do that; I do not know. Our amendment attempts to do that by making it perfectly clear what an acceptable excuse is. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I cannot contain myself any longer. The term "reasonable" is well used in legal proceedings, and clearly what is reasonable must be judged at the time on the merits of the case in question, and so on. I hate to suggest that work should not be made for lawyers, but introducing what I see as an entirely innovative phrase would make work for lawyers. Therefore, although I declare an interest as a practising solicitor, I do not think that the wording suggested in the amendment is a good idea.

Lord Borrie: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am not one of those who think that drafting cannot be improved from time to time, but if someone wants to move away from what is common form and is understood by lawyers and the courts to another phrase, which is what the amendment would do, a very good reason should be given for it. There are plenty of precedents for the phrase which is now in the legislation, and altering it would present something new, requiring fresh interpretation. The question was asked: who says whether this is so or not? In the end, the answer is that this is a defence in court. The courts are very familiar with this phrase, and I would leave it at that.

Lord Hanningfield: I do not think that either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness listened to what I said. I said at the start that I was trying to probe the Government on what was meant by the words "reasonable excuse". I did not say that I was pushing for the word "reasonable" to be changed. Clearly, we want to know the Government's thinking behind the term, and that is why the amendment was tabled. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's thinking rather than turn this into an argument about the use of the word "reasonable" and other expressions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have nothing to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Borrie said. They employed the argument that I was intending to use. "Reasonable excuse" is an understandable defence. It can be brought in a court of law, where it is understood. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the phrase "genuinely adequate" would be an entirely new concept in English law and would be completely inappropriate.
	I do not think that this is a sensible amendment. It is completely inappropriate and totally unnecessary. It would undermine well established and understandable ways of working and presenting a defence in court. I see no merit in it at all. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that we are all ganging up on him, but I believe that he needs to take away this matter and think long and hard about it because it does not do anything for the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: I did not think that anyone was ganging up on us. We have received a totally inadequate reply. What we want from the Government is an explanation of "failing to comply". This is a vague part of the Bill and we were trying to obtain an indication—or even, as I said later, some guidance—from the Government on what would be a reasonable excuse for not complying with a notice. However, in response, the Minister has simply talked about what is "reasonable" and not about what is a reasonable excuse for not complying with a notice.
	We are entering rather difficult territory. We dealt with the same matter on a similar amendment yesterday. We need to think about the amendments and perhaps come back to them with a different approach at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 43A to 43E not moved.]
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Improvement notices: enforcement action by local housing authorities]:
	[Amendment No. 43F not moved.]
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 31 to 38 agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Emergency remedial action]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 25, line 13, at end insert "reasonable"

Lord Hanningfield: Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 again attempt to probe the Government a little about the circumstances in which they believe emergency remedial action would be taken and how the local authority should, in effect, go about it. We have had some discussion on this matter before. Perhaps, as a start, the Minister could provide us with some examples of when he believes that such action would be appropriate. We are also attempting to ensure that greater effort is made to inform individuals who might be affected by such action and to ensure that they are fully informed and aware of such developments. Again, that issue was covered in a similar amendment yesterday.
	With Amendment No. 44, we return to the word "reasonable", which, on this occasion, I am seeking to insert before the word "time". Without that change, it seems to me that a local authority could enter a premises at any time if it so wished, including in the middle of the night. We all understand the need for such possible powers of entry. However, I am sure that they would be covered in other legislation relating to gaining access in the event of an emergency. Have we not just spent some time on this matter debating the Fire and Rescue Services Bill? I am not entirely sure that such powers would be desirable in this case, but I shall bow to any explanation that the Minister may like to provide us with.
	Amendment No. 45 would ensure that the owner, as well as the occupier, of a property was informed of the local authority's decision to undertake such action. It seems to me that many of the properties that could well be covered under this section are likely to be rented properties at the lower end of the market where the owner does not live on-site. I cannot believe that a local authority would not at least make an effort to contact the owner before commencing emergency work. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: Although, to be honest, I suspect that it would be a rare occurrence, it is envisaged that in this case the local authority could enter a property in the middle of the night. That is the whole point of the exercise. Clause 39 is headed "Emergency remedial action" and that is defined in subsection (2) at the bottom of page 24 of the Bill:
	"'Emergency remedial action' means such remedial action in respect of the hazard concerned as the authority consider immediately necessary in order to remove the imminent risk of serious harm".
	In other words, we are dealing with a crisis or emergency situation. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, it might well be the case that a local authority would have to enter a property without any warning in the middle of the night. The noble Lord's amendment would mean that that power could be exercised at any "reasonable time".
	Amendment No. 45 would enable the notice of entry to be served on the owner as an alternative to the occupiers. Such a proposal would simply slow down the action required under Clause 39. The actions taken under some other section would follow a different set of rules. These are emergency measures where there is an imminent risk of serious harm. Listening to the lawyers, I should imagine that that is a well known, tried and tested term. I certainly hope that it is. I have heard it before and am fairly certain that it is understandable.
	We are talking about a crisis or a serious situation. These powers are intended to be used to tackle the hazards at the upper end of category 1—that is, hazards that need to be tackled immediately. Examples of that might be to prohibit the use of a staircase that is so rotten that someone might fall through it at any moment, to support a wall that is in imminent danger of collapse or to remove the danger of exposed electrical wiring. In those circumstances, the top priority is to alert with the utmost urgency those who are at risk from the hazards—that is, the occupiers of the premises—rather than the owner who lives elsewhere.
	That does not mean that the owner of the property is disregarded. Subsection (7) requires the authority to serve a notice of emergency remedial action on the owner—and on the others on whom the notice, or a copy of one, would be served in the ordinary, less urgent cases—within seven days of taking the emergency action.
	In addition, subsection (8) applies Clause 204—that is, warrants to authorise entry—to enable the authority to enter premises to take emergency remedial action. The justice of the peace to whom a warrant application is made must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the authority would not gain admission without a warrant. In other words, the provision is dealing with a crisis situation and, if we were to include the words "any reasonable time", that might be held to be within normal working hours. In such a situation, the restriction to normal working hours could put people at imminent risk of serious harm.

Lord Hanningfield: I do not know what the piece of legislation is, but I understand that legislation already exists to deal with emergency entry into buildings if there is a real hazard—for example, as I mentioned during debate on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, if a place is on fire or flooded. I cannot see that in order to take remedial action to a property it will, or should, be necessary to disturb anyone living in a home in the middle of the night. I do not accept what the Minister said. That may be the case if something is dramatically wrong, such as, I repeat, a fire or flooding or something akin to that, but if it is something such as a wall that needs replacing, I do not think that it would be right for people to enter a house at two o'clock in the morning when a family was asleep. That would be more frightening and worrying to the family. I do not really accept what the Minister said. What I suggested was that there should at least be some reasonable time—I would not say normal working hours but some sort of reasonable hour—when one could enter a property.
	I also suggested that it would be right at that time to try to inform the owner that that was to be done if the owner is responsible for the property. Even if a notice is to be served on the owner in due course, it would be right to try to inform the owner that the property is being entered. I do not think that I received a satisfactory reply from the Minister. Usually, he gives pretty good answers. I do not know whether he would like to reconsider this. Does he really think that families should be disturbed in the middle of the night for fairly minor things? I think that it is quite unreasonable.

Lord Rooker: These are not "minor things". We are talking of being at,
	"imminent risk of serious harm",
	and I gave examples of such circumstances. What brings about those circumstances in out of work hours, I do not know. It might be a bit of "do it yourself" in the next door property. I was once being driven here on my way to work one morning and three buildings had fallen down in one of the poshest parts of London because someone had been working on a building next door. You cannot just leave things like that. This is,
	"imminent risk of serious harm",
	brought about by what and caused by what at unusual hours I do not know. If people in the property are at risk of serious harm, we cannot ring Timbuktu or Monte Carlo where the owner might live and say, "By the way, can we get cracking with this? Send us a fax", or, "We'll fly someone out to sign the papers". That is self-evident. I think that I have given a very good answer to this.
	I have an even better one now. The Local Government Association—the noble Lord opposite is leader of a major council—is a key player in this. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health wants the powers. As has been said, the test for using such powers is very stiff.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that answer. We may consider this again, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 46:
	Page 25, line 21, leave out "; but"

Lord Hanningfield: Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 continue the theme of publicising and informing the intent of a local authority to undertake emergency action on a property. This is a little like the previous amendment and some amendments we debated yesterday.
	We believe that it is far from satisfactory for a notice to be served merely if it is pinned to a part of the building or a nearby lamppost. How many people read such notices? What about the effects of the weather? We see that all the time. This appears to be a rather haphazard way of going about things and would allow the local authority to do the bare necessity when it comes to making an effort to inform those affected of its decision to enter the premises and carry out work.
	I stress, however, that I am in sympathy with the difficulty of what a local authority is being asked to do. No doubt the Minister will ask me what my alternative would be. However, that is, perhaps, not the intent of the amendment. Rather, it is designed to draw attention to an issue that we would otherwise have passed over. Amendment No. 46 is consequential to Amendment No. 47 in this regard. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: I have tabled two amendments in this group. On Report in another place the Minister made it clear that local authorities can take action to deal with very urgent hazards regardless of whether an appeal is lodged against the improvement notice. However, there is a view that this clause does not make that entirely clear.
	My amendments would ensure that frivolous or vexatious appeals against emergency enforcement action under Clause 44 do not unduly frustrate action by local authorities when they try to secure the removal of hazards which will represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of occupants. I hope that the Minister can address these concerns, which have been raised with me by members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

Lord Rooker: If I may, I shall deal with the amendments in reverse order. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are certainly well intentioned; there is no question about that. They seek to prevent an appeal against emergency remedial action delaying the action and preventing the authority from getting on with the work. However, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
	There is no provision for an appeal under Clause 44 to interfere with the operation of the remedial action under Clause 39. There is nothing to prevent the authority from carrying out the intended works. In practice, the works will have been carried out promptly. By definition, that is the nature of emergency measures. An appeal is more likely to consider whether the action was right rather than just stop the work being done. So the amendments are well intentioned but unnecessary because the work can be done.
	Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would remove the provision that enables a notice of entry to be regarded as served if it is fixed on a conspicuous part of the premises or building. It is necessary to have this provision in cases where the occupiers cannot be contacted or the premises are empty and the hazard is to other people such as neighbours. You would not put the notice on the part of the building that is about to collapse. It would have to be conspicuous but left standing; I accept that. It is not unknown that an owner cannot be contacted. There was a semi-detached 1930s-type house in my constituency causing major problems—I can remember the road—and no one knew who the owner was. Trying to trace the owner was a serious problem. The local authority wanted to take action at a particular time and could not, and the matter was dealt with a long time afterwards. So, that is not unknown. Legally, you need to make some effort. You might have no address, no phone number and no key holder but the neighbours might be under threat and emergency measures might be required.
	The amendments would place obstacles in the way of the local authority carrying out the emergency work. I stress, and repeat, that Clause 39 applies only in exceptional cases where there is an imminent risk of serious harm. This is not the ordinary type of case which is dealt with in Part 1. This is an exceptional part of the Bill. We really do believe that we need these reasonable powers.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that there has to be some immediate action and probably the only way forward at present is to post a notice on a nearby property or part of the house. One would hope with the advent of modern technology and as time moves on that there might be other ways of informing people, but probably that is a few years ahead. However, often these notices are very unsatisfactory. As I said earlier, when it pours with rain they are defaced. One sees that with planning applications. However, there is no other answer at present and I accept what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Appeals relating to emergency measures]:
	[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Demolition orders]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 29, line 30, leave out from first "in" to "the" in line 31 and insert "all of the flats in"

Lord Hanningfield: Amendment No. 50 would forbid a local authority to make a demolition order on an entire property unless the local authority could show that under the rating system a category 1 hazard was present in all flats contained in the building. This is, in essence, another probing amendment designed to tease from the Government their understanding of what circumstances would prevail for a demolition order to be served.
	In theory, a demolition order may be served if there is only one instance of a category 1 hazard present. That raises some interesting questions. Were that to happen, what would be the fate of other individuals living in adjoining flats? Would they be rehoused or simply expected to find other accommodation? How many such orders do the Government expect will be issued every year?
	Subsection (9) states that compensation may be available in certain circumstances. Perhaps the noble Lord could confirm whether individuals living in adjoining flats would be covered, and covered in full, under this rather vague statement.
	That leads me on to Amendment No. 52, which also tries to bring greater clarity to this area of compensation. Who would decide on the level of compensation and in which circumstances it would apply? We might end up with a mishmash of a system which varies from one authority to the next. Surely it would be better to have published guidance about compensation on a national level, as our amendment seeks to achieve.
	The intent in Amendment No. 51 is similar to that in Amendment No. 52. They attempt to understand the Government's thinking when they say that different provisions may apply in different locations and circumstances. Again, I would welcome the Minister's thoughts. How can we have a scheme that applies in one area but not the other?
	Clause 48 deals with the local authority's power to charge in cases of enforcement or possible enforcement action. While we can understand that there are situations in which a local authority may want to charge before issuing a notice, we are concerned that, as the Bill presently stands, an authority could still decide to charge although it does not actually serve an enforcement notice. Our Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 would therefore allow an authority to charge only where a notice had been served. That seems a more sensible approach.
	These amendments would also appear to apply equally to subsection (3) in cases where an authority was deciding whether to take emergency remedial action. Again I am unsure about the justification or merit of that approach. I therefore look forward, as ever, to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to enlighten me in the gloom and uncertainty surrounding many of these issues. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think I had better carefully take the Committee through this group of amendments and explain some of the background.
	Clause 45 substitutes a new Section 265 of the Housing Act 1985 to align the demolition order provisions with the hazard assessment and enforcement provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. That retains the provisions on demolition in the 1985 Act, of which I am sure the noble Lord is well aware as it was put on the statute book during the lifetime of his party's government. The device that we have used avoids the further lengthening of the current Bill.
	Where a local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate enforcement action under Clause 5 in relation to a category 1 hazard in residential premises, making a demolition order is one of the courses of action available to it, unless the premises are the subject of an interim management order or final management order under Part 4. Clause 45 also gives a local authority discretion to make a demolition order if it is satisfied that a category 2 hazard exists, but only in circumstances that may be specified or described by the order.
	Amendment No. 50, as the noble Lord has set it out, would prevent a local authority making a demolition order in respect of a building containing one or more flats unless a category 1 hazard existed in all of the flats in the building. I think that the Committee will recognise that that is an extremely stiff test and not one that we feel we can support at all. I recognise that a demolition order is a major step, and I think that the noble Lord will appreciate that these would be extreme circumstances. It is perhaps the most severe step that an authority can take in respect of a single building.
	However, it is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that an authority, when confronted with a category 1 hazard, has a duty under Clause 5 to take the most appropriate form of action. In the case of such a hazard in a single flat or in a few of the flats in the building, it may be expected that the authority will be able to deal with the situation in some other way, probably by serving an improvement notice or perhaps by making an order to prohibit the use of a particular flat while the matter is dealt with.
	I should also like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Section 269 of the 1985 Act which provides a right of appeal against a demolition order. Section 269A of the Act makes it a possible ground of appeal that the best course of action in the circumstances was not a demolition order but one of the other courses of action for which Part 1 provides.
	It is clear, therefore, that there is redress against an authority that oversteps the mark by setting out to make a demolition order without considering very carefully whether another course of action would have been more appropriate and perhaps more proportionate in the circumstances.
	Amendment No. 51 would effectively prevent a local authority making a demolition order in response to a category 2 hazard in a building containing one or more flats. The arguments that I deployed in response to the previous amendment also apply here. No authority in its right mind is going to demolish a building in response to a category 2 hazard if there is a better and easier solution to hand.
	The Government's view is that such a solution is likely to be available in the majority of cases. However, we do not wish at this stage, or in the future, to remove the option of demolition entirely because it may well be appropriate in extremis. That is why Clause 45(4)(c) limits such action to circumstances specified or described in an order made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
	The Government have no immediate plans to bring forward such an order and would consult very carefully before doing so. We would need strong persuasion that such an order is necessary. Until such an order is made, it will not be possible for an authority to make a demolition order in the circumstances that are clearly troubling the noble Lord.
	Amendment No. 52 would require the appropriate national authority to specify the circumstances in which compensation paid following the making of the demolition order may be repaid. This amendment would come into conflict with Section 58(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1985, which makes detailed provision for repayments and requires disputes to be referred to the Lands Tribunal. I do not feel that the intervention of the appropriate national authority in matters in which the Lands Tribunal has great expertise is likely to improve the wisdom of decisions to be made on the repayment of compensation.
	Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 seem to intend to ensure that charges can be made only in respect of notices on orders that have actually been served or made. We do not think that those amendments are necessary at all as Clause 48(1) already has that effect. So that point is already covered.
	I have spent some time going over the detail. I appreciate that the noble Lord was asking also for other information. I cannot provide figures, but we think that a relatively small proportion of a total of 50,000 annual enforcement actions of all kinds will fall into this category. Compensation will arise if the whole process, including any appeal procedure, is exhausted. However, I cannot provide much more information this evening on that point. I am quite happy to have further research undertaken and to write to the noble Lord on the issue.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that very full response. I think he agreed with our sentiments that it is not very desirable to demolish a whole block of flats housing many occupants because of a problem in perhaps one flat. I am also grateful that he said he would look at my list of questions in detail and come back with answers to them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
	Clause 45 agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Clearance areas]:
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 46 agreed to.
	Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Power to charge for certain enforcement action]:
	[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
	Clause 48 agreed to.
	Clause 49 [Recovery of charge under section 48]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
	"(6A) If such an appeal is brought and a decision is given on the appeal which confirms the underlying notice or order, the demand becomes operative at the time when—
	(a) the period within which an appeal to the Lands Tribunal may be brought expires without such an appeal having been brought, or
	(b) a decision is given on such an appeal which confirms the notice or order.
	(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A)—
	(a) the withdrawal of an appeal has the same effect as a decision which confirms the notice or order, and
	(b) references to a decision which confirms the notice or order are to a decision which confirms it with or without variation.
	(7) As from the time when the demand becomes operative, the sum recoverable by the authority is, until recovered, a charge on the premises concerned.
	(8) The charge takes effect at that time as a legal charge which is a local land charge."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 50 agreed to.
	Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Licensing of HMOs to which this Part applies]:

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 36, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) any HMO in the authority's district of three storeys or above or in which at least five people live,"

Baroness Maddock: I have given notice to the Minister of my intention to degroup Amendment No. 58 from Amendments Nos. 58A, 62A and 65. I think that he is happy about that. Although all the amendments in the group concern one topic, I realised that it is a substantial group of amendments. I initially thought that we would manage, but in view of the approaching dinner hour it would be much more helpful for everybody if I were to address Amendment No. 58 separately.
	Amendment No. 58 is a probing, but serious, amendment. It is designed to try to persuade Ministers to introduce a more inclusive mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme. The Bill provides for the threshold for mandatory licensing to be specified in regulations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated it intends that those regulations will require only houses in multiple occupation with three or more storeys and five or more occupants to be licensed. The ODPM estimates that that will cover only 120,000 houses in multiple occupation, which is about 19 per cent of what we think are 638,000 houses in multiple occupation in England. Our key concern is that the proposed threshold will leave thousands of vulnerable tenants in unidentified and hazardous HMOs, because they will fall outside the scope of the mandatory licensing scheme.
	Evidence from local authorities—I am grateful also to Shelter for briefing me on this matter—shows that a significant proportion of large, two-storey houses in multiple occupation and smaller shared dwellings are sub-standard and poorly managed. It is felt that all houses in multiple occupation with three or more storeys, and at least five occupants, should be licensed.
	The area that I represented as a councillor in Southampton was close to the university. I saw many family houses go over to multiple occupation. We had all kinds of problems with them. I am sure that other Members of the Committee who have been councillors in those kinds of areas know the sort of problems that exist.
	Evidence on fire risks, in particular, does not support the Government's thresholds. The 1996 Entec report on fire risk identified all three-storey houses in multiple occupation as high risk, regardless of their occupancy levels. In 1997, research by the ODPM's predecessor, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, found that 52 per cent of houses in multiple occupation fire deaths occurred in buildings of three or more storeys, even though only 16.5 per cent of households lived in such buildings. So a tenant who lives in a bedsit in a building of three or more storeys is almost 17 times more likely to be killed by a fire than an adult who lives in a single-occupancy building.
	I have been lobbied also by various other houses in multiple occupation groups. Leeds HMO Lobby and the Nottingham Action Group referred particularly to student accommodation and they made similar comments to those that I have made.
	Surveys of authorities by Shelter and the National HMO Network suggest that, at most, only half of local authorities will extend their license schemes to include smaller, but some still potentially hazardous, houses in multiple occupation. I know that the Government want to stick to their definition of HMOs, with local authorities being able to deal with other houses under other selected licensing arrangements. Another recent survey of local authorities demonstrates significant support among local authority environmental health departments for a more inclusive mandatory scheme.
	The Government have said that local authorities can use the discretionary powers to extend the licensing of small houses in multiple occupation, but there are concerns about how the scheme will operate. The extended discretionary licensing scheme is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and it is limited to a period of five years. Local authorities will be required to consult interested parties on the needs for additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Landlords are likely to be the main respondents and in many cases they might oppose the additional licensing for human reasons.
	House in multiple occupation tenants in poor housing are an extremely hard-to-reach group who may fear eviction if they complain too loudly to the council The process will have to be repeated every five years. There are concerns that perhaps a future Secretary of State who objects to the principle of houses in multiple occupation licensing will be able to reject a local authority's application to extend the scheme, irrespective of its merits. It is therefore essential that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at least publishes guidance setting out the factors to which it will have regard in reaching a decision about such an application.
	The proposed threshold for mandatory licensing of only large houses in multiple occupation of three or more storeys and five or more occupants is over-cautious and inadequate. It will not cover the majority of smaller, dangerous, poorly managed houses in multiple occupation in which living conditions for tenants can be pretty bad. There is a desperate need for intervention to ensure that basic minimum health standards are met for tenants in such properties. Without mandatory licensing, they are unlikely to be identified and the problems are unlikely to be tackled.
	Shelter is most concerned about the position, as are the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Officers and various houses in multiple occupation groups. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us some comfort. I realise that it is difficult, knowing the Government's view, but I believe that there is a good case for widening the provision. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. She made a strong case for many more houses in multiple occupation than those covered by the intended government regulation. As she indicated, that will apply to only 19 per cent of the total number of homes in multiple occupation.
	The noble Baroness said that the Government were being over-cautious. I have no doubt that the Government are being cautious and one reason the noble Baroness did not mention was resources. The resources of the local authority to deal with this real problem will no doubt improve and increase as time goes by. However, current and near-future resources are limited. Above all, it would be wrong to put on the face of the Bill anything like what is proposed by the noble Baroness, as distinct from a provision made by regulation, which is the Government's intention. It may be that the government intention to use a regulation at the beginning may be over-cautious. But it can be changed. If something in the legislation is not inappropriate now—as I suggest that it is—it could in any case become inappropriate as time goes by. Surely the Government's method of approach, by making the definition about what applies in the regulation, is much better than including it in the Bill.

Lord Best: This is a crucial part of the Bill, and I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, puts his finger precisely on the point at issue: how far can one go, how much at this stage can one say, in seeking to improve standards and bring this fairly forceful set of regulations to bear on landlords whose tenants are the most vulnerable and in the worst circumstances? That balance is what we are discussing. No one wants to drive landlords so hard that we diminish the supply even of appalling accommodation, because we have acute shortages of homes to rent. Even the worst landlords are putting a roof over people's heads.
	So the balance must always be: how far can we go without doing more harm than good in regulating the sector. I think that we can go further than saying that mandatory licensing would apply only to those cases where there are houses of three storeys or more that contain five people within them.
	Courtesy of the Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group, I visited a number of properties in north London, in the Brent, Harlesden and Wembley areas. In particular, I looked at those properties that would not be covered by mandatory licensing, because, for example, they consisted of only two storeys but were awful properties in which there might be seven or eight people. I went to see houses in Harlesden with long back additions where people were living in conditions that I well remember visiting in the 1960s, which we have been led to believe are a thing of the past. No, slums with landlords who harass their tenants are still out there; landlords still behave badly—and not only in properties that are three storeys high.
	The difficulty here is getting the balance right. Because of the pressures on resources for environmental health officers and more generally in local government, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, local authorities will not be willing or able to do more than is imposed on them as a duty. Therefore, where one draws the line of mandatory licensing and where one leaves it to the local authorities to go further at their discretion, is important. I believe that we can go further than this fairly timid and cautious approach and be firm on the worst of landlords.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie says, this represents 19 per cent of houses in multiple occupation—that is, about 120,000 properties out of about 640,000 houses in multiple occupation. Those 640,000 are a relatively small part of all the homes let by private landlords, which number about 2 million. So we are down to a very small proportion of the sector as a whole—just 19 per cent of part of the sector—and the question is whether being tough, getting involved with that part of the whole, is going too far and whether we should be more or less cautious.
	Even if these matters are the subject of regulation, will the Minister consider keeping an open mind about whether the "three storeys and five people within the home" provision is really going far enough? Might there be a chance of persuading him to agree to a slightly bolder version of the regulations when we see the small print later?

Baroness Hanham: I shall join the debate only briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made my blood run cold with his perfectly apt description of some of the houses in the north parts of Kensington and Brent. However, we must be careful here not to put our foot on this part of the market completely. All landlords and people who run houses in multiple occupation are not rogues or presiding over houses in a terrible state of disrepair. So I urge a bit of caution here. In fact, the provision concerning a house of three floors with five tenants will bring into the regulations a substantial number of properties which may or may not be necessary.
	We cannot support the amendment as it stands. I suggest that we remember that, although there are terrible landlords, some are also very good, doing a good job and supporting the people who are living with them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose that I should start by saying that I have sympathy with the point being made. I used to represent a ward with many students who lived in terraced houses of only two storeys. Yes, more than five people were living in them. But, on the other hand, from a great deal of contact with students living in those circumstances—as a student, I lived in not dissimilar circumstances—I have to question the proportionality of the measure proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
	I start by reminding the Committee exactly what the Government propose and shall then return to the points that have been raised. Clause 54 requires houses in multiple occupation falling within the definition set out in the clause to be licensed by local authorities. The definition of an HMO in the clause is: any HMO falling within a description to be prescribed by order by the appropriate national authority. The Government's intention is to prescribe that the definition be: houses of three storeys and above in which at least five people live who form more than one household; and any HMO situated in an area designated by a local authority as subject to additional licensing under Clause 55 and which is of the description set out in the designation. That is how it will work.
	As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 58 would insert in the Bill the definition of an HMO to which mandatory licensing should apply as: any HMO of three storeys or above, regardless of occupancy, or any HMO, regardless of the number of storeys, that is occupied by at least five persons. So that would be a fixed, rigorous definition in the Bill, without the flexibility that we require.
	Amendments similar to these were tabled and extensively debated in another place. Of course there was a divergence of opinion as to when the requirement for mandatory licensing should apply. Our scope for mandatory licensing of HMOs is those of three stories or more occupied by five or more persons. We have always made clear that we have adopted three-storey HMOs as the starting point for mandatory licensing because we take the view—there is evidence to support it—that the greatest risk from injury or death affects those properties. I doubt whether there is any dispute about that. Of course, one can argue about the configuration of properties—the point was made about properties with extensive back additions, and so on.
	The number of occupants in each dwelling is also an important factor to be considered. The greater the number of storeys in an HMO, the higher the number of occupants is likely to be, so we would expect the risk of fire to increase in such a building. We are aware that there are many HMOs of fewer than three storeys occupied by five people more, but those persons are far less vulnerable to injury from fire than those in three-storey houses.
	I also appreciate that there are some HMOs of three storeys occupied by four persons, but it is far more likely that a three-storey building will house more people. I can only reiterate that the greater the number of people living in a property, the higher the risk of fire.
	We take the view that a line must be drawn somewhere on where HMO mandatory licensing applies. The Government believe that that line should be drawn at houses, as we have set out. We recognise that licensing will impose burdens on landlords and local authorities. It is therefore, in our view, unreasonable to impose licensing where it is not needed. The Government do not believe in excessive or undue regulation. Therefore, we have made mandatory licensing a targeted measure. That is why we have adopted this route. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made the point for us. We must attack the problem where it is worst and be proportionate in the use and distribution of the resource that we apply to it.
	Local authorities have, and will continue to have, discretionary powers to license problematic categories of HMOs within their areas. The very circumstances about which the noble Baroness is concerned can be addressed by the local authority using its discretion. If a local authority establishes that there are management problems with all HMOs of, say, three storeys or more occupied by four people, or all HMOs occupied by five persons, which justifies licensing, we are giving them the facility and tools to do so through additional licensing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked about our future intentions. It is our firm intention to carry out a review of licensing within three years of its introduction. The reason why the scope of mandatory licensing is not on the face of the Bill is so that the scope can be changed if necessary through secondary legislation. So if the review finds that licensing should apply to a wider, or perhaps narrower, range of houses in multiple occupation, we have the power to implement that finding. We have the flexibility required if a wider band of houses in multiple occupation is an evident problem.
	So the local authority has discretion to act and we have left ourselves scope to adapt and fine tune the range of HMOs that could be caught within the legislation through a secondary legislative route. I certainly understand and appreciate where the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is coming from and have seen the sorts of problems that she describes. But we have left sufficient flexibility to address that issue and we think that the local authority will have sufficient flexibility to act if it identifies a problem.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that very full answer and other noble Lords who have commented on the amendment. I recognise the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that it would not be very wise to include this provision in the Bill. However, as he will appreciate, it is very difficult to amend secondary legislation. Therefore, the only mechanism at my disposal is to raise the matter here. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Best, that it is important that we get the balance right. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that not all landlords are bad landlords.
	Nevertheless, there is a problem. The Minister talked about the discretionary powers for supplementary licensing. As I pointed out, those powers are not easy to use. I am conscious of the hour, so perhaps we can return to the matter later. Perhaps we can reach a compromise whereby we widen the scope a little. I appreciate the assurance that the Government will keep the matter under review; I hope that they will. The Minister talked about the number of three-storey properties with four occupants. I do not have figures on that, but if there are any such properties, perhaps we should look at them before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage not begin again before 8.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Wild Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vehicle Testing (Temporary Exemptions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of this short order is to increase the existing borrowing power of which the Law Society of Northern Ireland can avail itself in relation to its compensation fund from £100,000 to £1 million. The existing level was set in 1976 and no longer reflects the needs of the Law Society. The figure of £1 million has been arrived at as representing a much more satisfactory borrowing limit.
	In order to allow reviews of the limit to take place without the need to amend the primary legislation, reviews may be undertaken in future by the use of secondary legislation. The order will be beneficial to the Law Society of Northern Ireland in its management of this important fund. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for outlining this order. Based on a quick calculation, it appears that to jump from £100,000 in 1976 to £1 million in 2004 is to do little more than keep up with inflation. I thought at first that perhaps the use of the society's fund had grown so much that there was a serious problem, but when I did some elementary mathematics I found myself quite content with the order.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for outlining this brief order. I have three questions. Why are government funds used for this purpose? I do not believe that they are used for that purpose in England and Wales, although I am prepared to be corrected on that. Why is insurance not used? The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says that the increase is keeping pace with inflation; I respectfully suggest that it is keeping pace with legal inflation. If I am reincarnated, I hope that I return as a lawyer in Ireland because I will be as rich as Croesus. Such legal inflation is unbelievable. Why are the Government funding this in the first place? Why cannot insurance be used? What is the position in England and Wales?

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I have no objection to the order in principle but I am slightly concerned that it will change the procedure for dealing with this kind of proposal from an affirmative to a negative resolution. Why is such change necessary? We suffer from a deficit of governance in Northern Ireland. Surely this further change by the Department of Finance and Personnel will make that deficit even worse.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify that this is not government funding. The fund is made up from contributions from solicitors themselves. Perhaps I can give the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, an example of the way in which the fund is used, which would help to explain it.
	The fund is used to provide grants in circumstances of loss arising from a solicitor's dishonesty. A common example would be during a house purchase transaction. A solicitor might have a large amount of his or her client's funds in a client account during the purchase. If that is misappropriated, the client could be placed in an extremely difficult financial situation if immediate redress is not effected. The fund is then used in that way.
	With respect to the negative resolution procedure, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, it is normal practice for primary legislation—which is in effect what this order is—to contain powers to vary monetary limits placed on them. This is a sensible measure that allows reasonably straightforward changes to be made in circumstances where limits become outdated, without the need to produce another piece of primary legislation. I think that that was just overlooked in 1976, when the original legislation was enacted. It would not normally be the case that with respect to something that had monetary implications and monetary limits placed on it, there was no ability to review without going through the whole primary legislation process.
	There is a similar fund for England and Wales. There are a lot more solicitors on the roll in England and Wales, and there is a higher levy than in Northern Ireland. The limit in England and Wales is much smaller. I do not need to address the point on insurance, because I have already addressed it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Amos: My Lords, copies of this order have been laid before the House. The order is made under Section 75(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The purpose of the draft order is to make the bodies listed in the Order "public authorities" for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They are the Electoral Commission; the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission; the Office of Communications; the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company; the Social Fund Commissioner and the Ilex Urban Regeneration Company Limited. Those public authorities will be subject to the statutory duties set out in Sections 75(1) and 75(2) of the Act, requiring them to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between specific groups.
	Section 75(1) of the Northern Ireland Act requires all public authorities to,
	"have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; between men and women generally; between persons with a disability and persons without; and between persons with dependants and persons without".
	In addition, and without prejudice to those obligations, public authorities are required under Section 75(2) to,
	"have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group".
	In order to demonstrate its commitment, each public authority is required to produce an equality scheme that sets out how it will fulfil these duties. The schemes will cover the full range of the organisation's functions in Northern Ireland. As required by the guidelines approved by the Secretary of State, each will include arrangements for policy appraisal; public consultation; public access to information and services; monitoring; and timetables. These schemes will be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval. The Equality Commission will advise on preparation and validate and monitor the Section 75 statutory obligation and will investigate complaints of default.
	The Government intend that the statutory duty should, in time, embrace as many bodies as possible. This is not the end of the process, and we will bring forward further designation orders as and when required. We remain determined to build a society where the active promotion of equality and good relations is seen as an integral part of public life. Section 75 is the key to that goal, and I am pleased to be able to extend its reach to these further organisations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for that brief and clear statement of what the order is about. I understand, like, I suspect, everyone else in the Chamber, that this is part of the Belfast agreement cost. Of course I, and I am sure most noble Lords, agree with the thinking and with promoting equality of opportunity and all that goes with it. However, the longer it goes on, and the longer this list and other similar lists grow, the more difficult I find it to come to terms with what, when totalled together, is a huge bureaucratic burden on a small society.
	The Government have said that the order—I am not accusing anyone of lying—that there are no identifiable costs to the public or the Exchequer and that the order has no regulatory impact. With a directive such as this, an organisation must produce a plan or a document or a series of documents proving that it has met what the Government has passed in legislation. It also must be prepared to challenge any criticisms, complaints and answers. Again, I just do not believe that these organisations, or any of the other 120 that there are, can actually achieve that at no cost. It may be a change of cost or a change of emphasis, but I do not understand how you prepare yourself to meet the requirements that the Lord President read out just now when she was introducing the order for no cost. I would like a little further education on that.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, points to a significant factor in all of this. However, the reason that we support the passage of this order is that, unfortunately, it is necessary to give robust signals to all organisations that they must behave in a decent and reasonable way. While it undoubtedly adds to the amount of regulation in an over-regulated society, which I readily admit, it is nevertheless necessary.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The Explanatory Notes to the order state that there is no identifiable cost to the public or the Exchequer. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the cost to the public authorities, and I do not just mean financial costs. Drawing up an equality scheme will require a considerable amount of research, time and energy, all of which will have to be drawn from other areas of a public authority. It can be an extremely bureaucratic process. How can we be sure that while concentrating on the requirements of this order a public authority is not using expertise and eating into time that could be better employed for the public good?
	Perhaps the noble Baroness could comment on whether she feels that there might be a cost to the quality of service offered by a public authority by its compliance with this order. Moreover, will the noble Baroness say something about how equality of opportunity or the promotion of good relations can and has been measured? How are outcomes monitored? Is such information fed back to the public authorities to improve equality schemes? Finally, what recourse will those new public authorities have to learning from other bodies already designated? Can they pick up best practice?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I entirely appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Rogan, with respect to the burden that may be placed on public authorities. Of course equality schemes require some effort from designated organisations. But the Equality Commission is sensitive to the size of an organisation and the breadth of its activities in Northern Ireland.
	From my own experience working in this area for a number of years, I would also say that it very important for organisations that want to demonstrate best practice—not just with respect to issues relating to equality but also in relation to their personnel and other practices—to use that kind of process. Organisations very often find it helpful when looking overall at their processes and practices and at improving the way in which they work in general, not just in relation to areas of equality or opportunity.
	Many organisations have well developed equality policies already in existence, which can form a basis for the scheme. Where policies and functions do not adversely affect equality—many or most do not—they may be screened out from the need to produce equality impact assessments.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that part of the process is about sending a robust signal. It is about encouraging organisations to operate in the right way. But I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that there is a great deal of learning that can be done by other organisations which have gone down this road before.
	Regarding how it will be monitored, that is something on which the Equality Commission is currently consulting; that is, whether the monitoring process should be qualitative, whether it should be quantitative and the best ways in which these issues can be addressed. I am happy to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, receives information about that consultation process in case he would like to contribute to it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Amos: My Lords, once again, the absence of a devolved Assembly obliges us to bring before your Lordships provision to extend the power to legislate by Order in Council for Northern Ireland until April 2005. The order would cease to have any effect once devolution was restored. I very much hope that it would not run its full course. There has been much discussion in recent months about arrangements by which stable, inclusive devolved government could be restored in a context where paramilitary activity is entirely ended.
	That has been the focus of the review of the operation of the Good Friday agreement and a broader dialogue energetically animated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, which culminated with discussions at Lancaster House on 25 June. Following those discussions, the Government recognised the constructive spirit in which the parties had approached them. But they also made clear that the effort needed to be stepped up. Intensive political dialogue will resume at the beginning of September.
	During suspension of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, we remain committed as a government to providing good governance to the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have taken matters forward in the broad direction set by the devolved executive.
	However valiant our efforts to provide good administration in Northern Ireland, by common consent an executive of Ministers drawn from Northern Ireland answerable to the Assembly elected there is better placed to do the job they did between 1999 and 2002 than Ministers answerable here. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the opportunity must be seized in the dialogue in September to restore devolved government in a context entirely free of paramilitary activity. Drift is not an option.
	I hope that this occasion will be the last on which we seek your Lordships' consent to extend these exceptional powers. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8 July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for that explanation. I strongly agree with her last sentiments: we, too, hope that this is the last time the Government will need to come to the House for a renewal. I do not intend to go over some of the ground that we have covered on each occasion that an order similar to this has come before your Lordships. But I would like to make a couple of the points that we have been making over the past day or two.
	I do not believe that there will be a sudden change of heart and that by October of this year we shall suddenly have devolved government again. That is unreal. We have some serious elections ahead. Political parties are as occupied electioneering as they are negotiating and looking to do deals with each other. Noble Lords will know better than me that running up to an election is not a time when political parties work together—rather the opposite—particularly when we have two parties that are poles apart and at opposite ends of the spectrum.
	My purpose in giving that background refers to the debates that we had last night. The noble Baroness the Lord President knows very well from the tone of those debates and from discussions that we have had in private that we on this side of the House feel that the Government cannot go on administering Northern Ireland in the way that now applies. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made very clear his views, which summed up those of my own and my party very well.
	The time has come to face reality, to think laterally, to get a grip and to remember that the people of Northern Ireland deserve respect and democracy. It is not the fault of the majority that they are in this state. It is not their fault that we happen to have the two most powerful parties as the two extreme parties. I believe it is high time that this Government took serious measures to change the process by which the Province is governed until, at some point in the future, we are able to reach joint agreements whereby full devolution can be arrived at.
	It saddens me to say that. I know that too often when addressing Northern Ireland affairs I come to this Dispatch Box being pessimistic, and I take no pride in the fact that so far I have been proved right. I wish that it were different. But it is so and it is now time to acknowledge that drift, to use the expression of the noble Baroness, is no longer an option where administration in Northern Ireland is concerned.
	I beg the Government to take that seriously. I can assure the noble Baroness that we would like to be party to any initiatives that have been worked on in the review and we will do our best to be supportive and helpful. I have made that clear to the noble Baroness both in private and to my honourable friend in another place, David Lidington.
	Let us hope that if the worst happens and in the future we have to face another extension of this order, at least by that time we will have a different system of government as a result of some serious, courageous actions and lateral thinking. In the mean time, I support the order.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of this order. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, when he says that the present political impasse is not the fault of the people of Northern Ireland. After all, they did hold an election which created a polarised situation and produced something that has to be dealt with. That should not be taken from them.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the noble Lord always finds some reason to take issue with me, and I am delighted to hear his opinion.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, logic is on my side tonight, as always.
	One way or the other, this should be the last order. It had better be sent up to the polarised politicians of Northern Ireland that this is to be the last order. We cannot go on and on drifting—I too use the word of the noble Baroness.
	A month ago the Prime Minister echoed a point I have been making for a long time: that we cannot go on paying the MLAs just for sitting there. I ask the Minister this: if by October nothing happens in a positive way, is it the intention of the Secretary of State to reduce their salaries to nil? I ask that because unless they are doing the work, I do not think that they should get the money. It has been going on for nearly two years and, as the Prime Minister implied, enough is enough.
	I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, although with different nuances. While I do not seek an assurance, I would advise the Northern Ireland Office that there had better be a plan B. We saw in Grand Committee yesterday what we have seen previously. Even though we took rather more time than has been the case in the past discussing something as important as the Northern Ireland budget, we still spent less time on it than would be spent by a major local authority in this country—a point often made by my noble friend Lord Shutt. That does no service to the people of Northern Ireland and is totally inadequate in terms of holding Civil Service rule to account. I do not blame civil servants since they have had to pick this up faut de mieux.
	I hope that the Northern Ireland Office, with its usual imagination, will be working on a plan B so that, if the worst comes to the worst and a form of direct rule—I do not think that it will be the status quo ante; I have always said that it will be a form of de facto condominium between Westminster and Dublin—is to be continued and imposed because time has run out so far as devolution for this generation is concerned—something I would deeply regret because I want to see the devolved institutions up and running as soon as possible—we shall need an alternative to the present rather ad hoc system.
	In looking at that development, noble Lords on these Benches would be happy to be consulted by the Northern Ireland Office as to what form it should take. Moreover, if it is made known that a plan is being worked on, perhaps that will concentrate the minds of the elected Members to the Northern Ireland Assembly to get a move on. The one message that must go out tonight—as it has repeatedly from the Governments of both Ireland and the United Kingdom—is that we must resolve this issue once and for all, one way or the other.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I should also like to thank the Minister and to express the hope that this is the last occasion on which we discuss such an order in this House. I intend to speak for somewhat longer to this order than was the case for the previous two.
	It is almost two years since the devolved institutions were suspended, after the exposure of an IRA spy ring at Stormont. Following that, my party's subsequent attempts to re-establish devolution with republicans were met with gamesmanship and intransigence over the decommissioning issue and reluctance on the Government's part to take any serious steps to pressurise those republicans to honour their commitments under the Belfast agreement. However, as such criticism has constantly fallen upon deaf ears, I am grateful for the opportunity today to make a point that the Government should seriously address.
	It appears that the DUP will do a political deal with IRA/Sinn Fein in the autumn. It will be a highly spun revamp of the political partnership that my party engaged in with the SDLP. That suggests to me that the Government have thrown their hands in the air and said, "Well, we almost stabilised things and delivered devolution through the moderate parties. It didn't work. Never mind. Let's keep the peace and give the extremists their share of the cake and see what happens next".
	That kind of short-term thinking will lead to further communal polarisation and instability in Northern Ireland. The Government are deluded, if they seriously think that an exclusive deal between the DUP and IRA/Sinn Fein will have a positive effect on the prospects of consolidating devolution.
	The year 1998 was not the political endgame that many thought it was. In fact, it was the beginning of a transitory process aimed at establishing firm devolution. That process needed to be nurtured, balanced and managed by the two Governments. The failure of the republicans to engage honestly and with transparency in a democratic sense has resulted in the collapse of that process.
	People are now asking why the two Governments sat back and allowed that to happen. I believe that the answer is very simple: the Governments were afraid that Sinn Fein/IRA will carry out its threat and return to violence. That threat has determined the pace of political development in Northern Ireland since 1998 and undermined the hard work that led to the Belfast agreement. In real terms, they have given Sinn Fein/IRA a de facto veto over the democratic process. That is exactly why the unionist community—my community—has lost faith in this process and in the Government's handling of it.
	Consequently, we have a situation in Northern Ireland where fear rather than hope is once again the determining factor in how people vote and form their political opinions. One has only to look at last year's Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey to understand that. The results indicate that most Protestants think that nationalists benefited at their expense from the Belfast agreement. Consequently, their disenchantment with the 1998 agreement has steadily increased. There can be no more obvious illustration of this point than the paradoxical finding that, for the first time, more Protestants than Catholics—32 per cent compared with 26 per cent—actually think that a united Ireland is either "quite likely" or "very likely" to happen in the next couple of decades.
	There are some very simple reasons for that—namely, the scaremongering and misinformation that has emanated from the DUP since 1998; the fact that Sinn Fein/IRA has got away with and benefited electorally from abandoning its commitment to full decommissioning; and, crucially, the Government's unwillingness to punish it for doing so while those who took risks for peace are constantly let down by the Government for having done so.
	When the Belfast agreement was signed in 1998, many people lent it their support because they accepted the word of the Prime Minister when he said that he would make good on his promises: Sinn Fein/IRA would decommission and there would be a level playing field on which devolution could become firmly established in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister will no doubt feel a certain sense of political déjà vu from the echo of this critique. There are always long-term consequences of taking serious constitutional and international decisions based on short-term political goals. I implore him to learn from the mistakes over the past six years because it is not too late to get it right.
	The electoral interests of the republican movement must not be allowed to hold our political future to ransom. Should it continue to foster the threat of violence and paramilitarism that hangs over the political process, the two Governments should consider alternative means of consolidating devolution in Northern Ireland.

Lord Eames: My Lords, I do not come to this discussion to represent any particular political philosophy, but from my knowledge of those who are working day and night on the streets and in the towns of Northern Ireland. While I have found a great deal to agree with in what I have listened to in this debate, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that there are two aspects to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
	There is the political level, which has engaged most of us in this discussion so far. There is also the attitude of the ordinary men and women on the street in Northern Ireland. What worries and concerns me at this time is not just that we may see one more chapter in the legislative responsibility of this House and the other place for Northern Ireland, but the fact that there is widespread disillusionment with the whole political process because people feel that it is getting absolutely nowhere.
	In addition to that, one of the cardinal reasons for that alienation is that people feel that they are getting on with their lives and existence and that what is happening at the level that you, Minister, and others are concerned with, has less relevance to their lives than it had even a few years ago. For that reason, I seriously urge, and join with those who have already urged, Her Majesty's Government to let it be known that there is a plan B. Let it be known that there is an alternative to our situation at the moment, and that we are not going on with the circus of endless talks while the people of Northern Ireland go on with their lives and feel a growing gap with their experience and the experience which is no doubt happening in political circles.
	I pay tribute to the efforts of the two governments—the British Government and the Irish Government—and I pay tribute to the respective Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. But I also make a very strong plea, and not from a purely party political stance but from my knowledge over many years of working in this situation. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the need to take on board the fact that once that alienation between what is achievable and what is the reality on the ground becomes wider and the gap widens, we have a very serious problem in Northern Ireland.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I wonder if I might interject at this point, following the most reverend Lord Eames. One of the saddest things that I heard yesterday was the decrying of the Civic Forum, and the idea that it was something that ought not to be continued. Following on from the remarks of the most reverend Lord Eames, not only would I institute the Civic Forum, I would create a multitude of them—for education, health and transport. Indeed, I would have a cross-border civic forum.
	If the politicians will not get involved, let the people get involved. I encourage the idea of thinking about a plan B. If we cannot cope with politicians, let us go direct to the people and give them lots of opportunity for involvement.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken have acknowledged the complexity of the situation in Northern Ireland. I believe that we would all agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the people of Northern Ireland deserve respect and democracy. That is absolutely what we have been working towards.
	I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord Eames when he refers to the two aspects of the peace process—

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I spent some time persuading the Procedure Committee to give the style and dignity to the noble Lord, Lord Eames, of "most reverend", which was otherwise previously given only to the Archbishops of York and Canterbury. We have for the first time in your Lordships' House an active Archbishop, and for the time he is in that role the Procedure Committee agreed that he would be referred to as "most reverend".

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise. I misadvised the noble Baroness the Lord President.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can apologise on my own behalf. Having checked in the Companion to the Standing Orders, I see that we have got it wrong, so we will change the Standing Orders.
	I entirely agree that there are two aspects of the peace progress: the political level and the attitudes on the streets of Northern Ireland. I have listened with a degree of concern to the comments made by noble Lords about the perception that there is now greater marginalisation and a feeling of disillusionment with the peace process. If that is the case, it is a matter of serious concern.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was concerned that an agreement should not be made between just two parties. I assure the noble Lord that we seek the widest possible measure of inclusion in government. In the review of the operation of the agreement, we have sought to talk to all parties and we shall continue to do that. I acknowledge that there are risks of the communities drawing apart but it is clear that stable, inclusive partnership government is the best way of addressing them in Northern Ireland.
	Noble Lords will know that the meetings that have been held between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach—and between the parties in Northern Ireland—have been guided by two fundamental objectives: the need to see an end to all forms of paramilitary activity and the imperative of restoring a stable and inclusive devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Intensive political dialogue, led by the two Governments, will resume at the beginning of September with the aim of concluding this phase of the process. I recognise that reaching agreement will not be easy but we cannot have further delay because we need to put first the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
	There are four key issues that need to be resolved: a definitive and conclusive end to all paramilitary activity; the decommissioning, through the IICD, of all paramilitary weapons on an early time-scale and on a convincing basis; a clear commitment on all sides to the stability of the political institutions and to any changes of their operation agreed within the review; and support for policing from all sides of the community and for an agreed framework for the devolution policing.
	There were a number of questions about what happens next and what happens if it does not work. It is our view that we must remain focused on achieving the right outcome. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at Lancaster House on 25 June, if we find that we cannot make this process work we must conclude that we cannot continue in the way envisaged. The Taoiseach agreed with that view. The negotiations have not been easy but all parties have a shared understanding of the issues and are doing their best to achieve a political settlement. We have urged the parties to maintain their engagement over the summer. We will do all we can to lay the groundwork for success in September.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked specifically about what would happen to MLA salaries. The salaries and allowances are kept under regular review. That means that the Secretary of State will look at them again very closely on the outcome of the political discussions that will follow the summer break.
	I recognise the strong feeling around the House that this will be the last time that we have to consider such an order. I share that view. In the discussions that we had in Grand Committee yesterday, I was very conscious of the amount of detail on which we are asking noble Lords to comment. We do not think that this situation is satisfactory. I recognise that noble Lords do not consider that it is satisfactory. We will continue to do all we can to try to work to a situation where we can restore devolved government in Northern Ireland.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.45 p.m.]

Housing Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 54.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 58A:
	Page 36, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) The appropriate national authority may by order prescribe descriptions of HMOs for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) to which this Part does not apply."

Baroness Maddock: I rise to move Amendment No. 58A, which yesterday was tabled as Amendment No. 65A. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62A, which yesterday was tabled as Amendment No. 65B, and also to Amendment No. 65.
	The first two amendments deal with the meaning of "house in multiple occupation" and consider the removal of some exemptions. Clause 217(5) excludes houses in multiple occupation that are owned or managed by bodies listed in Schedule 11 from the meaning or definition of "a house in multiple occupation" except for the purpose of Part 1 relating to HHSRS. This has the effect of excluding many high risk properties in multiple occupation that are currently defined as houses in multiple occupation, including buildings controlled or managed by local housing authorities, registered social landlords, educational establishments and religious communities, from the new houses in multiple occupation definition, for the purposes of the mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing regime introduced in Part 2, for the purposes of any local discretionary extension to the mandatory houses in multiple occupation licensing scheme under Part 2, and all statutory management requirements relating to houses in multiple occupation. These include not only those introduced by Clause 66 in Part 2—licence conditions—and Schedule 4—mandatory licensing conditions—but also those contained in Clauses 197 and 198 of Part 7—approved codes of practice and management regulations in respect of houses in multiple occupation.
	This might be somewhat of a retrograde step as the current Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990, introduced under Section 369 of the Housing Act 1985, apply to all houses in multiple occupation regardless of which body is responsible for controlling or managing them. These amendments would ensure that the statutory meaning of a house in multiple occupation would apply to all houses in multiple occupation meeting the tests of multiple occupancy as set out in Clauses 217 to 222 regardless of the status of the current landlord. This would ensure that the definition of a house in multiple occupation reflected solely the nature of its occupancy and the inherent health and safety risks of that type of occupancy rather than the owner or manager of the premises. It would ensure that the approved codes of practice and management regulations relating to houses in multiple occupation in Part 7 would apply to all those responsible for managing a house in multiple occupation, including local housing authorities, registered social landlords, private landlords, educational establishments, including private contractors, and voluntary bodies. This would create a level playing field for houses in multiple occupation management with the aim of ensuring the health and safety of all those residing in accommodation in multiple occupation.
	The amendment would also allow local housing authorities to extend local discretionary housing for multiple-occupation licensing to properties that might be exempt from the mandatory scheme under Clause 54(3). They also might wish to license them under Clause 55 powers. For example, if an authority considered that a significant proportion of university houses in multiple occupation in its locality were inadequately managed and that that had an adverse effect on the residents or the local community, it could designate those houses in multiple occupation for additional licensing.
	The Bill is the first legislation to exclude such a wide range of accommodation from the meaning of "house in multiple occupation" on the basis of who the landlord is, rather than the physical nature of the accommodation and occupancy arrangements. The Bill repeals the 1985 Act provisions and directly links minimum management standards to houses in multiple-occupation licensing, so that only licensable houses in multiple occupation are subject to the standards.
	As drafted, the Bill represents a retrograde step in relation to the housing management standards and the associated health and safety risk to residents of some houses in multiple occupation. A better approach would be to exempt certain categories of house in multiple occupation from licensing through secondary legislation, in cases where alternative regulatory regimes are more appropriate. An example would be registered social landlords regulated by the Housing Corporation. It does not make sense to exempt them from the legal minimum management standards for houses in multiple occupation altogether.
	Despite being pressed on the issue when it was discussed, the Housing Minister in another place did not explain why the Government had changed their position on that since their 1999 consultation on the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about that.
	A number of people are concerned about the issue. The amendment has the support of Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Houses in Multiple Occupation Network and the National Union of Students. I hope that we can persuade Ministers to delete Clause 217(5) and Schedule 11—the amendment has been de-grouped, but we can deal with it later—and to introduce a power to exempt HMOs owned by particular types of landlord from the licensing scheme. We would like to see that disappear. Amendment No. 65, which is grouped with the amendment, is slightly different. However, it is again about different categories of houses in multiple occupation. It concerns self-contained flats. I am grateful to the British Property Federation for bringing the issue to my attention. Clause 220 includes, in the definition of houses in multiple occupation, self-contained flats that are conversions that do not meet the 1991 building regulations. There is a further qualification that blocks of flats where at least two thirds are held on long leases and are owner-occupied will be exempt, but by definition not if more than one third are let or sub-let on short tenancies.
	The evidence in the regulatory impact assessment on the Bill discussed only bed-sits, not self-contained flats. Very few respondents to the consultation exercise on the Bill specifically lobbied for the inclusion of self-contained flats; only 11 out of 410 respondents mentioned the issue. The inclusion of self-contained flats will be fraught with difficulties, particularly when we look at enforcement. For example, the occupants of blocks of flats can change very quickly, so the property could drop either side of the two-thirds threshold, perhaps quite regularly. Therefore, sometimes there will need to be a licence and sometimes there will not. Very often in a block, there is no specific obligation by anyone in it to monitor who occupies the flats. That creates the problems.
	Perhaps the Minister can answer some questions on this matter. Who will be prosecuted if there is a failure to obtain a licence when there are long leaseholders in a property? Are the Government seriously suggesting that leaseholders who exercise their right to manage their block under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002—which this House discussed at length—can be fined up to £20,000 for their failure to obtain a licence?
	At present, local authority houses in multiple occupation registration schemes are based on a one-third threshold and the Government have not given their reasons for changing that to two-thirds in the Bill. In the Commons the Minister stressed that the amendment took away protection introduced in the Housing Act 1996. Apparently that was not the case and officials have since admitted that there was an error. I think that the confusion arose because existing registration schemes work on the basis of exempting blocks of converted flats when at least a third are held on long leases. The Bill specifies that blocks will be included in licensing where less than two-thirds are on long leases. It should be amended so that blocks are included when less than a third are let on long leases, as proposed in the amendment. In other words, if a third are held on long leases the block will be exempt—the same as under the existing registration schemes. The amendment would mean that the new licensing regime would mirror the current schemes of local authorities. Another of the various questions on this matter is what would the transitional arrangements be for properties which are already part of a local house in multiple occupation licensing scheme when this part of the Bill is enacted?
	These technical amendments involve a great deal of background. I hope that the Minister will accept them on the basis that I am trying to probe how such issues will work and whether we can improve matters to ensure that houses which we wish to see included are not left out. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: This whole issue of defining what is a house in multiple occupation is fraught and is one of the areas about which we have received most correspondence. The Bill's definitions of who owns and who lives in flats, as described in Clause 221, are specific. Our attention has been drawn to the situation of students in cases where, for example, a parent buys a flat in a university town and five or six students rent it or pay the rent. Usually the flat will be well maintained because there is an investment in it and one of the reasons why the parents bought it was to ensure that the students could live in decent circumstances. However, such flats could be caught by these regulations.
	So we need to unpick this matter in some detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. She has opened the door and we would be interested to hear the Minister's reply. Whatever he says and whatever the noble Baroness says, we need to return to this matter.

Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, some of this is technical. Much of what she said initially is also covered by Schedule 11. Although I am happy to deal with that now, we may need more time to deal with it. As that provision has its own grouping, I will, if I may, deal now with Amendments Nos. 58A, 62 and 65. It would be better if I left anything that related to Schedule 11 until we consider that group. That will also avoid repetition.
	Clause 54 provides for local authorities to licence two groups of HMOs including those that fall within the scope of mandatory licensing as defined by the order. Subsection (3) enables the appropriate national authority to make an order setting out the scope of mandatory licensing for houses in multiple occupation. Our intention is to prescribe for the mandatory licensing of HMOs of three storeys and above in which at least five people live who form more than one household. The other group involves HMOs designated by a local authority as subject to additional licensing under Clause 55.
	Amendment No. 58A would allow the appropriate national authority to prescribe descriptions of HMOs which should be excluded from mandatory licensing provisions under Part 2. We believe that the amendment is superfluous. A house in multiple occupation would fall within the mandatory licensing provision only if the appropriate national authority made an order that caught it in the first place. So if it wishes to exclude any category of HMO all it needs to do is ensure that it is not brought within the order.
	That is a fairly technical way of putting the matter. The Government oppose the amendment because we consider that Schedule 11 should be the eleventh schedule to the Bill. The amendment would allow local housing authorities to apply additional licensing to a wide range of HMOs such as its own stock, registered social landlords, university accommodation, buildings otherwise regulated and even owner-occupied dwellings. That is somewhat different from the argument that has been advanced that low-level regulation should be available to deal with specific problems of management failures where they arise in public sector HMOs.
	Amendment No. 62A seeks to remove Clause 217(5), which will give effect to Schedule 11. We will deal with that when we come to the Question whether Schedule 11 should be the eleventh schedule to the Bill.
	Amendment No. 65 would amend Clause 220 to change the ratio of owner-occupiers to short-term tenants so that only buildings where less than one-third of the flats are owner-occupied, and more than two-thirds are short term tenants, will fall within the definition of HMO.
	The current definition of HMOs in the Housing Act 1985 applies to all converted houses, regardless of the standard of conversion or the tenure of occupancy. Clearly, this is not appropriate, since the legislation is primarily intended to target poorer quality accommodation providing homes for some of the most vulnerable members of the community. We have therefore taken the opportunity in this Bill to narrow the definition of HMO to include poorer quality properties occupied by a substantial number of short lease holders or tenants.
	The issue of the ratio of owner-occupiers required to exempt a converted building as an HMO was debated in another place but we are convinced that the ratio we have set in this clause is the correct one. Perhaps I should say that it is the one that we favour or prefer; "the correct one" is a pretty bold statement.
	Adopting the ratio proposed by this amendment would mean that a block of 12 flats would not be an HMO even where seven of the 12 flats are occupied by tenants. We would expect that in this sort of situation where the majority of the occupants are tenants, there would be issues of management in such properties, and it is therefore important to classify these properties as HMOs in order to provide adequate protection for the tenants.
	The Government believe that owner-occupiers are in a position to exercise their contractual rights and require minimum standards to be enforced. Where they are not happy with the management arrangements they can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to appoint a manager of the block.
	Tenants, on the other hand, are not in the same position. In fact, many problems associated with HMOs, such as poor maintenance and management, are as a direct result of the absence of the "landlord" leaseholder. But, of course, many blocks at which the legislation is aimed are owned by single individuals or companies, were converted many years ago and are occupied by elderly or other vulnerable people. It is often these blocks which are a cause for concern in terms of the health and safety of the occupiers. Often those houses are not fitted with adequate smoke detection equipment. The Building Regulations 1991 require alarms to be mains fitted and thus always working.
	According to government research into fire safety, published in 1997, persons living in houses converted into self-contained flats are twice as likely to die from fire as those living in comparable single-occupancy houses. That must be a compelling reason to ensure that legislation on houses in multiple occupation is available to protect tenants living in these poor conversions.
	However, we do not agree that the legislation should apply only where fewer than one-third of the flats are owner occupied. The Government are aiming to achieve the protection of tenants living in houses in multiple occupation where a substantial proportion of the flats are let on short tenancies. The amendment would be contrary to that. We shall have several debates about the definition of houses in multiple occupation and what it should cover.
	I want, if I can, to stick to the narrow point of the amendment each time. In some ways, we can sweep up some of the issues that we have not dealt with in discussing the technicalities of the amendments when we debate whether Schedule 11 should stand part of the Bill.
	I have one other point to make. I was asked whether the long leaseholder would be prosecuted for failing to get a licence. The answer is that the freeholder would be prosecuted. The question was also raised as to whether leaseholders who exercise the right to manage are liable to prosecution if they fail to get a licence. The answer is yes. I was also asked about the power to modify applications of the Bill in the case of blocks of flats. We recognise the difficulties involved in that respect but we do not intend to extend mandatory licensing to blocks of flats. I hope that that is a satisfactory response to the specific questions asked by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that reply. As he said, these are fairly technical matters and I shall look in a little more detail at what the Minister said. With regard to Amendments Nos. 58A and 62A, there is a concern that a better approach than that adopted in the Bill would be to have a broad definition to exempt through secondary legislation certain categories of houses in multiple occupation from licensing, particularly in cases where alternative regulatory regimes are more appropriate. We shall discuss those in later debates on the Bill. I am concerned that, as the Bill stands, houses in multiple occupation owned or managed by certain bodies are exempted from the definition and from the legal minimum required for houses in multiple occupation. However, I shall look at what the Minister said and it is possible that we may need to return to this matter.
	With regard to Amendment No. 65, I hear what the Minister says. Before the dinner break, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Government would monitor how things work out. I think that the leasehold aspect may be an area that will need to be monitored. I find the subject of leasehold incredibly complicated and shall take advice on that. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his careful explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 36, line 29, at end insert "; and
	( ) to adopt a co-ordinated approach in connection with dealing with homelessness, empty properties and anti-social behaviour affecting the private rented sector—
	(i) as regards combining licensing under this Part with the other courses of action available to them;
	(ii) as regards combining licensing with measures taken by other persons; and
	(iii) as regards its homelessness strategy and the provision of advice and assistance to those likely to be affected by the licensing regime."

Baroness Maddock: In moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 88. Amendments Nos. 59 and 62 go together, more or less, and deal with aspects of homelessness. One matter of concern, particularly to those who work with the homeless, is that tenants could be left homeless as a result of landlords withdrawing from the market, especially when refused a licence under the scheme. We believe that measures to regulate houses in multiple occupation must take account of the risk that, in response, landlords may choose to end a tenancy or stop letting altogether.
	At present, the Bill contains no measures to help tenants in that situation. We believe that that should be remedied by linking houses in multiple occupation licensing more closely with the local homelessness strategies. I hope that we can persuade Ministers—perhaps they are planning this—to issue guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to work strategically to prevent and alleviate homelessness caused as a result of houses in multiple occupation licensing.
	Clause 54 introduces mandatory licensing of larger, high-risk houses in multiple occupation. Clauses 55 and 56 will allow discretionary licensing if a housing authority wants to extend the licensing regime to other houses in multiple occupation in certain circumstances. Clause 56(3) requires an authority introducing additional houses in multiple occupation licensing or selective licensing to adopt a co-ordinated approach to dealing with homelessness affecting the private rented sector.
	This group of amendments was around when the Bill was discussed at the other end. However, as the Minister and I know, whereas here we choose to debate every amendment, down the other end they are selected and sometimes amendments fall out. The issue was raised, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Yvette Cooper, made a statement to the effect that those who became homeless unintentionally were clearly already covered by the local authority's usual obligations for support for homelessness, which include advice and assistance. As Clause 56 mentions explicitly the importance of homelessness and links it with the homelessness work of local authorities, she felt that the amendments were unnecessary.
	It may be that the amendments are not quite what we need. However, local authorities must be aware of the impact of licensing on homelessness in their area. We hope that the Minister will give a commitment that the guidance accompanying the Bill will encourage councils to be proactive in working to ensure that tenants from houses in multiple occupation are prevented from being made homeless where possible and are offered the advice and assistance that they need.
	It is essential that local authorities plan carefully how they introduce licensing to ensure that they have the capacity to deal with the properties that need to be improved to meet licensing requirements. Indeed, we talked about proportionality in this area earlier this evening.
	Amendment No. 88 is slightly different. Again, at this stage we are probing some of the issues. I really wanted to press the Minister on the Government's intention regarding the use of references. Schedule 4 states that a licence must include conditions requiring the licence holder to demand references from persons who wish to occupy the house. Again, this was another amendment which was not debated in another place. Everyone accepts that one of the reasons for selective licensing is to prevent anti-social behaviour and that vetting tenants may be one way to do that. However, we should like the Minister to clarify exactly how he sees that working out. Many of us know that some of the most vulnerable tenants end up being housed in some of the worst housing. It is always possible that some people will be excluded and have nowhere to go. So, we need to think carefully about this, and I have one or two questions to ask. What types of reference do the Government think would be sufficient? Who would be accepted as appropriate referees: employers, doctors, holders of finance records, support workers? This is important with vulnerable tenants. What is the intention of the measure? Is it to help flag up the support that some vulnerable tenants might need? If so, how can we ensure that they receive the support services they need? If vulnerable tenants cannot supply references, would that mean that there will be problems, in general, with their housing?
	I hope that the Minister will accept these again as probing some of the issues that surround what is quite technical and complicated legislation. I look forward to hearing his response. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 59 imposes a general duty on local housing authorities to ensure that licensing would form part of a co-ordinated approach to dealing with the wider housing issues, including homelessness, empty properties and, indeed, anti-social behaviour in the private sector.
	Amendment No. 59 is inconsistent with the intention of Clause 54, which is to require the licensing of certain categories of houses in multiple occupation by local housing authorities. Where a property falls within the scope of mandatory licensing, the local housing authority will have no option but to license it. We do not think there should be scope for the local housing authority to consider if licensing the HMO under Clause 54 would be in line with its approach to homelessness, empty properties and anti-social behaviour.
	The Government have always stressed that the main reason for introducing the HMO licensing scheme is to ensure that there are adequate standards of management in HMOs and therefore provide protection for the occupants who are often the most vulnerable in the society.
	Mandatory licensing is aimed at the most high-risk properties of three or more storeys and occupied by five or more persons who form more than one household. We believe that occupiers of these sorts of properties need the protection that would be provided without a doubt by licensing, which is why we have provided that they should be compulsorily licensed. The local housing authority should not have any discretion when licensing an HMO under Clause 54, which would be implied by Amendment 59.
	However, we appreciate the fact that the pressure on housing is not the same in every area of the country. HMOs are not the same in every area of the country, but the general point about the safety aspect of people living in HMOs is a nationwide issue. It is therefore important that local housing authorities consider ways of co-ordinating licensing with the local housing needs in the area. That is why Clauses 56(3) and 78(3) provide that in making designations for additional and selective licensing, local housing authorities take their wider housing issues such as homelessness and anti-social behaviour into consideration.
	Additionally, the local housing authority is required to be satisfied that no available tool could be used to deal with the identified problem in the relevant areas without the need to resort to licensing.
	Amendment No. 62 is a technical amendment. I shall not go over that as it just provides the definition.
	Amendment No. 88 would have the effect of removing the requirement to demand references from a potential tenant from the mandatory conditions of a Part 3 licence and instead allow local authority discretion as to whether it attaches this condition to a licence granted under Part 3. We do not think that it is an unreasonable requirement of a landlord. Most landlords letting properties in high-demand areas already require references. While selective licensing will be applied in areas which are low demand, and accordingly have fewer potential applicants, the failure of a tenant to provide a reference or the provision of a negative reference should alert the landlord that by accepting the applicant as a tenant the landlord may need to be prepared actively to address any anti-social behaviour.
	There is no reciprocal requirement that a potential tenant should supply references in response to this demand, nor does the clause specify that the reference must be derived from a previous landlord. For that reason we do not accept the contention that the request for references could exacerbate the situation of those who experience social exclusion. In any case, we are not convinced that a perception that some potential tenants might have legitimate problems in obtaining references should lead to the conclusion that landlords should be relieved of an obligation to ask for them.
	The amendment, if accepted, would produce the unusual result of it being mandatory for the local authority to impose a reference condition upon selectively licensed landlords, but only if it wished to do so. It is our belief that this is an important step towards better standards of management in selectively licensed areas and it should retain its mandatory status to ensure uniformity across the country. This is a new exercise. It is not an unreasonable requirement of a landlord, because it is the norm for the vast majority of people. We are moving into a technical area of the legislation.
	Amendment No. 87 is grouped on my list with those to which I have just spoken, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did not mention it because it is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I shall not respond to it because it has not been spoken to.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. The amendments were moved in a probing spirit. With regard to my Amendment No. 59, vulnerable people need protection. I was hoping that the Minister would assure us that local authorities would be made aware in guidance of the problems that could occur and thereby be ready to deal with them. That is not to say that I do not think that the situation should be as the Minister described.
	With regard to Amendment No. 88, it is not unreasonable that people should have to provide a reference. I asked what types of reference would be required. Perhaps that will be explained in guidance and the Minister does not know, but it would be helpful if he could look at the questions that I asked and give me an answer at some point. We may need to return to the matter.

Lord Rooker: I would be more than happy to take advice on that question and write to the noble Baroness about the kind of reference required. However, I made it clear that the reference would not necessarily be from the previous landlord. There is obviously some scope in the legislation, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness before the next stage of the Bill, so we should have plenty of time.

Baroness Maddock: That would be very helpful. As I have said, these issues have been raised with me by Shelter and others who work with homeless people. They are concerned that things could happen. In regulating houses that are not well managed or looked after, they want to ensure that we do not make people fall off the end, so to speak, as a result of our enthusiasm to deal with such housing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 87 is grouped on its own much further down the list. I am sorry that I looked slightly blank when the Minister mentioned it. It is way down the list, after Amendment No. 86.

Lord Geddes: It may be of assistance to the Committee if I point out that Amendment No. 87 is indeed grouped on its own, in chronological order, over the page, between Amendments Nos. 86 and 89. There appears to be a typographical error in its being grouped with Amendment No. 59. It appears twice on the list and I imagine that it will be spoken to on its own in its correct place.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 36, line 37, leave out "5 years" and insert "12 months"

Baroness Maddock: I hope that Members of the Committee are not too bored by my moving amendments. I shall stop at some point. I shall be a little more brief on this amendment.
	This issue was raised by members of the Local Government Association, although they would frame it in a different measure. The amendment relates to the time that landlords have to deal with category 1 hazards. As the Bill stands, landlords can have, in extremis, five years to deal with those hazards. The Local Government Association thought that they should perhaps have three years, but the one year that we have specified in the amendment is in line with the wishes of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
	The amendment reflects the concern that houses which are licensed by local authorities and which contain a serious category 1 hazard could, in theory, remain occupied for up to five years without any action being taken to require the removal of the hazard. I am sure that the Government do not intend that to happen and that there are caveats that the Minister can explain.
	We are trying to reduce the period in which local authorities must have satisfied themselves that there is no Part 1 function to be exercised. Local councils must take action against seriously unsatisfactory living conditions, category 1 hazards and poor management. Given that we are talking about the vulnerability of clients in houses of multiple occupation, a five-year time frame is too long. A local authority should be able to assess and deal with such properties in a much shorter time.
	I hope that the Government are minded to look carefully at the matter. Perhaps the Minister will convince me that somehow such circumstances will not arise very often, but it is a great concern. Despite our earlier discussion about whether people should be able to go in the middle of the night to deal with hazards, in this provision we are enabling local authorities to leave some cases for five years. I hope that the Minister will respond suitably. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: During our debate on the previous group of amendments, a comment was made about amendments in the other place. Every amendment is selected in the other place if it is in order, although it may not always be debated. We do not have such a process in this House, but we try to debate the amendments that the other place has not debated. I give advance notice that both amendments in this group were debated in the other place in Committee and on Report, so my answer should not be new. I hope that it is exactly the same as the one that my ministerial colleagues used in the other place.
	As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 60 would substitute a period of one year for the five years specified in the Bill. The amendments were debated in the other place, following which we did not think that it was worth changing the period at present.
	Clause 54(5)(c) makes clear that local authorities should aim to determine those matters well within the five-year maximum period. We send that signal to local authorities by the use of the words,
	"as soon as reasonably practicable".
	Local authorities know the properties in their areas and can decide how best to carry out this duty. They should be able to prioritise cases on the basis of information supplied to them at the time the application is made.
	There should be no surprises for local authorities regarding the properties that they have. One of the most successful ways of collecting tax in this country is taxing property, because it does not move—whether it be through rates or council tax, the property does not move. There are therefore no grounds for arguing that local authorities cannot make a plan to prioritise.
	Due to the concentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in certain areas, some local authorities may not have the resources to inspect all HMOs subject to licensing within the first few years of the operation of the scheme. We would not wish to add to the burden of all local authorities by imposing a shorter period. However, we are confident that the pressure on local authorities, not least from private tenants, will be to achieve the shortest possible time-scale. It makes sense that local authorities target high-risk properties first—there should be no surprise regarding what those properties are.
	If local authorities carry out their duty to consider health and safety issues diligently and as quickly as they reasonably can, category 1 hazards will be progressively eliminated from houses in multiple occupation. We expect that, for the highest-risk properties, prioritisation will ensure that that happens at the earliest opportunity.
	A key purpose of licensing houses in multiple occupation is to ensure that landlords are "fit and proper" persons and follow a code of management practice that the Bill will prescribe. The other aspect of mandatory licensing will identify where the most at-risk HMOs are and ensure that they are targeted by the new housing health and safety rating system. We would all agree that, ideally, we want all properties to be properly managed and free of hazards. That is a reasonable expectation for everyone. The proposals in the Bill are a sensible attempt to get the best possible result.
	Licences will last for a maximum of five years, and it is a requirement on local authorities to consider the health and safety aspects of every house in multiple occupation as early as possible and at least during the lifetime of the licence, with priority given to high-risk properties. We expect local authorities to have the necessary resources to carry out checks on their stock within 12 months. They ought to be able to do that as it would be practicable to take the matter sensibly and literally prioritise those at high risk.
	Amendment No. 61 would allow a local authority to apply to the appropriate national authority to extend the 12-month period proposed in Amendment No. 60. The local housing authority would have to demonstrate good cause why an extension is necessary. Although Amendment No. 61 would mitigate the impact of Amendment No. 60 by allowing local authorities to seek an extension of the period, that, frankly, is overly bureaucratic.
	I know that we are regulating in a new area, but we genuinely want it to be as practical, least bureaucratic and light touch as practically possible. Some 20 years ago old Labour, if I can use the term, would have probably gone for a wholesale licensing of every property regardless of risk. We would have taken a blunderbuss approach with lots of red tape and bureaucracy. We do not do that these days: we are a much more practical, listening Government.
	Therefore, we want to have as light a touch as is consistent with making sure that we have decent safety standards for people in houses in multiple occupation. It is not sensible to ask all localising authorities that cannot meet such a shortened deadline as 12 months for assessing all HMOs in their area to make an application to the appropriate national authority. That is one less piece of red tape. I accept the reasons why the noble Baroness made this point. We think that it is better to provide that they should do so within five years of the licence, and that they will deal first with those at high risk well within a five-year period. If they do not, many local people will ask why not.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure that he did not convince me even more that 12 months was the right answer. It is interesting, because the Local Government Association has been asking for it to be reduced to three years, and it is at the front end. I will look carefully at what the Minister said and consult with others. We may return to this amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clause 217 [Meaning of "house in multiple occupation"]:
	[Amendment No. 62A not moved.]
	Clause 217 agreed to.
	Schedule 11 [Buildings which are not HMOs (except in Part 1)]:

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 226, line 5, at end insert "or section (Duty of care for those having control or managing a HMO)"

Baroness Maddock: Amendment No. 63 is grouped with Amendment No. 174. These amendments concern the duty of care on landlords of houses in multiple occupation. Amendment No. 174 introduces a general duty of care on all landlords of houses in multiple occupation, as defined by Clause 213. The duty applies to all houses in multiple occupation, including houses—such as houses owned or managed by a registered social landlord and universities—that are currently excluded from the houses in multiple occupation definition in Clause 213(2) and Schedule 11. The wording of the duty is based on the existing duty of care in the Defective Premises Act 1972 arising from defects in a property.
	The amendment would ensure that landlords who breached the duty faced a criminal sanction. It would also place local housing authorities under a duty to have regard to the general duty of care when assessing health and safety conditions relating to interim management orders under Clause 99(4). In addition, by its nature as a statutory duty, any breach of a duty of care would allow the resident of a house in multiple occupation to bring a civil action for damages and/or an injunction.
	Amendment No. 63 applies to Schedule 11. It disapplies the schedule in respect of the duty of care. Can the Minister explain why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed its view on the duty of care in houses in multiple occupation since it consulted on this in 1999? The duty of care remedy is vital to tenants in houses in multiple occupation, especially if they wish to take their own action against their landlord to prevent risks to their health and safety, including their safety in the event of fire, which is another issue that we discussed earlier. It is also vital to prevent the Bill being a retrograde step for tenants in houses in multiple occupation who are all currently entitled to live in homes that meet the fire safety standards in Part XI of the Housing Act 1985, which this Bill repeals.
	There has been extensive discussion on this in another place, but without the proposed amendments many tenants in houses in multiple occupation will have no remedy with which to take direct action against their landlord in order to prevent risk to their health and safety, particularly in the event of fire. That is particularly true for tenants in houses in multiple occupation that are managed by local housing authorities, social landlords and universities.
	As I said, the Bill is a retrograde step. It goes back on the duty of care that exists. I hope that the Minister can explain precisely why the Government are doing that. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The meat of this group of amendments is built around Amendment No. 174. Amendment No. 63 is technical and consequential.
	Amendment No. 174 inserts a new clause after Clause 128 that would impose a duty of care on landlords of houses in multiple occupation to require them to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the occupiers of the HMO were reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property.
	I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is not at all clear in subsection (1) of the new clause what the duty of care is in respect of. Is it in respect of management failures that could give rise to injury or damage? Is it concerned with the structure or physical characteristics of the HMO in question? Is it both of those, or is it intended to impose a criminal liability in respect of any act of negligence?
	The vagueness of this provision, which is open to wide interpretation but could nevertheless result in landlords being prosecuted for breach of a duty of care—the nature of which they could not possibly ascertain in advance—is one reason why I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. But the amendment is also unnecessary and would impose a criminal sanction where a civil remedy is already available. By and large, it is civil remedies that work well in housing legislation.
	I am referring to the Defective Premises Act 1972 that applies to all residential premises, including HMOs, where the landlord is under an obligation to maintain or repair those premises. Under Section 4, a landlord is under a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to see that occupiers and visitors are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect. A relevant defect is defined as being one for which a landlord is responsible because of his or her obligation to repair that defect.
	I would also remind noble Lords that under the provision in Part 1, local housing authorities will be under a duty to take enforcement action in respect of all residential property, including HMOs, which are in such a condition that they pose a risk to the health and safety of the occupiers.
	The current HMO management regulations—the Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990—apply to all houses occupied by persons who do not form a single household. Paragraph 13 of those regulations places a duty on HMO managers to ensure that adequate precautions are taken to prevent injury to residents arising by reason of the design or structural conditions of the HMO. It is the Government's intention to re-enact this provision in the new management regulations to be made under Clause 198. This will apply to all HMOs as defined in the Bill other than those listed in Schedule 11. I think that that probably answers the question posed by the noble Baroness during her contribution about our view on the duty of care remedy.
	Paragraph 13 itself imposes a public law duty on the manager because most residents of traditional HMOs will not in practice have recourse to their private law rights to sue their landlord for breach of his statutory duty under Section 4. They may fear retaliatory action, such as eviction, if they do so. That is why we accept that it is necessary to retain this provision to protect those persons. I think that we are probably at one on that point.
	However, I find it difficult to agree with the notion that a public law duty should be imposed for every type of HMO, which subsection (5)(a) would create by including those HMOs listed in Schedule 11 within the scope of the duty. Public sector tenants such as those occupying local authority or registered social landlord housing have in general security of tenure and do not risk being evicted because they sue their landlords for breach of statutory duty. Moreover, public sector landlords are controlled by the legal requirement that they act reasonably. Other landlords listed in Schedule 11, such as universities as well as public sector landlords, have a formal complaints procedure to deal with housing condition disputes.
	If matters are unresolved, there are procedures to complain to an ombudsman or adjudicator. None of this is available to private tenants living in traditional HMOs. Furthermore, what is proposed will impose a duty of care on freeholders to their long leaseholders if Schedule 11 HMOs were to be included. That duty would not simply be a civil one, which a freeholder does not have to his leaseholder, but one backed by criminal penalties. Perhaps that is not the intention of the amendment, but it would be its consequence. Perhaps the noble Baroness will take on board that point.
	We think that we have got it right, although I certainly understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. However, I hope that I have answered her points in my lengthy explanation and that the major issue has been satisfied.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. I know that Ministers do this all the time, but given the lateness of the hour and the number of amendments I have moved consecutively, I shall have to read carefully what he has said. I am still concerned that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed its mind on this matter. I did mention the 1999 consultation when moving the amendment. It concluded that powers under housing legislation to deal with multi-occupancy problems were necessary and should run in parallel with the licensing scheme. Indeed, when the draft housing Bill was published in July 2003, the Select Committee that deals with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recommended that landlords should be given a duty of care to maintain their properties to certain standards and conditions in order to protect the health and safety of occupiers, and that the Government should consider how the enforcement regime could be framed to give effect to such a duty.
	The Minister has answered some of my questions, but I shall first read carefully all he has said. It may be that I shall need to put further questions to him when we reach the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 226, line 31, leave out paragraph 4.

Baroness Maddock: Amendment No. 64 is concerned particularly with university halls of residence. I am aware that Universities UK does not like it very much, and I am sure that many noble Lords have received that information.
	As we discussed, Clause 217(5) excludes certain categories of property from the meaning of "house in multiple occupation". Originally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister favoured a much broader definition but, since that time, the universities have obviously persuaded the Government that they should not come under the scheme. However, a number of people have expressed concern about the issue, and I hope that the Government will look at it again. Halls of residence are not covered and, although the Minister in another place said that he did not believe that they should be covered, if we are not going to cover them we will need to look at a way of ensuring that standards of management and so on are adhered to. So, in a sense, I am again raising the issue.
	For many young students, the move to university is their first experience of independent living, and yet local authorities and student unions have frequently expressed concerns that university accommodation is often poor and even dangerous. I speak from the experience of having had a daughter at university in Cambridge in one of the old colleges, some of which have among the worst accommodation. She was accommodated on the top floor, and I am not quite sure how she would have got out in the event of fire. I do not think there was even a smoke alarm. We need to address the problem. If such accommodation is not licensed in the same way as houses in multiple occupation, we need to ensure that there are reasonable standards.
	I have received a great deal of briefing but, given the time of night, I have probably said enough to give a flavour of why we should address the issue. As I have said, I do not insist on the same regime as that applying to houses in multiple occupation, but we cannot afford to ignore it. We need to have something in the Bill to ensure good management and safety.
	Another area of concern is that, as with many other organisations, the universities are now using people in the private sector to take over and manage property; the universities are not doing it themselves. I am aware that the universities are worried about the costs, particularly if they go in for this kind of licensing. It is a problem that we need to address.
	I hope that the Minister will respond to the amendment in the spirit in which I tabled it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, addressed herself to paragraph 4(b); I should like to touch on paragraph 4(a) because I am sitting on two sides of a coin here—heads and tails. The heads relates to university accommodation which is privately owned but which is not accommodation such as a hall of residence. Most students live in houses in which they rent a room; or several rent a house and move in together.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I have had children who were students at university, and I know the standard of some of the accommodation. I worry slightly whether it is intended to remove from the Bill the kind of accommodation where someone owns 10 or 15 houses and lets them out to 250 students; where the management is zilch and the ability of students to get hold of anyone is non-existent.
	The other side of the coin relates to whether paragraph 4(a) covers the kind of accommodation to which I referred previously, where the parents buy a flat and, presumably, then put themselves in the position of being a landlord to other students if they let them out. Would they be exempted under paragraph 4(a), or would they be caught under other parts of the Bill? That is important, because that accommodation is often extremely good and is let by rather kind-hearted people, who take no advantage of students but make it possible for students to live as tenants of other students or of their parents.
	Neither part of the proposal has been explained entirely. I worry about the standards of some student accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may know from his experience in Brighton of similar problems.

Earl Russell: The amendment draws attention to the fact that the interface between housing law and university housing, like Topsy, has grown—and has done so in a somewhat illogical way. In relation to multiple occupation, universities are outside the system of controls; but in relation to rents, under the Housing Act 1988, universities are inside it. It is possible to argue that that is back to front. Whether one accepts that argument or not, it is about time that someone considered the problem in the round and saw whether they could come up with a logical solution.
	The question of houses in multiple occupation is one that I have not seen any need for in times past, but it could well be different in a situation of rapid expansion, which I am told is to come. The expansion in the reign of Elizabeth I, although my wife has persuaded me that it was on a much smaller scale than hitherto supposed, led to considerable tension in student housing: overcrowding, unsuitable accommodation in lofts, lack of ventilation and lack of space. The pressure is obvious, especially if the income depends on packing in more and more students like sardines. If university policy goes on in this way, it may be that there will be a need for this amendment that has not yet occurred.
	On the other hand, with rents, one gets a quite different picture. Under the Housing Act 1988, it is absolutely forbidden for universities to subsidise the rent of their halls of residence. The Government thought that they were council houses—this was at the height of Thatcherite dominance. The result is that they must by law charge market rents.
	My own college, King's College, London, has a central London site, with a few halls that are suitably close to the college, but those halls must charge central London rents. There is one place where the rents that the students are charged amount to more than the whole of the student loan. The college takes a great deal of flak for that—absolutely unfairly because, legally, the college has no choice in the matter. I have explained that to students year after year, but I cannot get it home to them.
	The one issue needs to be looked at with the other, and I hope that we may come up with a somewhat more rational solution than the one we have at present. What we have is a mishmash, for which I can see no possible logical justification. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This discussion has been valuable, because it enables the Government from their perspective to clarify how we see the situation operating with regard to HMOs and student accommodation.
	Amendment No. 64 would remove from the HMO exemption, as provided in dear old Schedule 11, properties managed or controlled by universities and occupied by their students. I should make it clear from the off that paragraph 4, which the amendment proposes to remove, does not provide a blanket exemption from the definition, and thus the HMO-specific regulation provided for in the Bill. Indeed, universities and for that matter other providers of student accommodation will be exempted only if they are specified in regulations made under that paragraph. Even if a university has been exempted by regulation and standards subsequently fall below what is acceptable for the management of a house in multiple occupation, the regulation can be revoked, and the statutory provisions will then apply.
	At this point I shall deal with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about whether private landlords of students—which is effectively what a parent would be—are exempted under Paragraph 4(1)(a). I have reread the way in which that works and taken some more advice on it and the answer is no. Both Paragraphs 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) must be satisfied. The word "and" is the clue.
	To deal with the issue at large, at present the Government do not want to impose statutory regulation on universities and other educational institutions. We do not believe that it is necessary and we do not want to place unnecessary burdens on these bodies, the cost of which will ultimately be passed on to the students. Universities are, by and large, responsible bodies and take the health, safety and welfare of their students very seriously, whether in the lecture hall or in accommodation on or off campus. Where a student has a complaint about accommodation, it should be addressed to the university in the first instance and, if not promptly resolved, the matter can be referred to the independent university complaints adjudicator. It is worth reminding the Committee that that facility is not available to all private tenants. They do not have recourse to that form of intervention.
	We are aware of the recent National Union of Students campaign highlighting the difficulties that some students in England and Wales have experienced in relation to their accommodation in some halls of residence. We are not convinced that HMO regulation is a solution to those problems. For a start, there is little indication of the scale of the problems, most of which appear to be about physical conditions. Those are issues that can be addressed through Part 1 of the Bill—the health and safety rating system applies to all residential property—and could not in any case be dealt with through licensing of other HMO forms of regulation. If students have grounds for complaint on management issues, they ought to take them to the university authorities in the first instance and thereafter to the complaints ombudsman.
	The Government are not persuaded that there is a sufficiently strong case for statutory regulation of university-managed accommodation. That goes back to the points I made when we initiated the debate on HMOs about focusing and targeting the effect of licensing on those properties that are most likely to be in the worst condition and to be used by the most vulnerable.
	It is worth saying a bit more about this. First, the Government do not intend to exclude other providers, even specialist providers of accommodation, from HMO regulation. Secondly, on Report in the other place, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning brought forward an important amendment to provide that only university-managed or controlled accommodation was exempted from the definition, as opposed to university-owned accommodation. That was in response to concerns that in some cases universities were letting halls out on long leases and transferring the management to the lessee. The amendment puts beyond doubt that the property will be exempted by Schedule 11 only if the university receives the rent from the student tenants, whether or not through an agent.
	The Local Government Association and Universities UK have also agreed to set up a project to review best practice in the management of student accommodation in the context of the wider community. Universities UK is also looking into the feasibility of a national approved code of practice for the management of student housing provided by universities. These are positive initiatives. In a sense, they will provide us with what we want. We had some discussion yesterday, I think, about concordat, best practice and working voluntarily as part of partnerships to ensure that we raise standards. That is where the LGA and Universities UK are coming from. I think that that is the best way to deal longer term with issues relating to the physical conditions of buildings.
	We understand and appreciate the problem. We are grateful to the National Union of Students for the research it has undertaken and for raising the issue in this way. We do not think that by extending the HMO regime in the way suggested in the amendment is the best way of tackling and dealing with the problem. We think that there are other more appropriate ways of dealing with it and other more appropriate remedies.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised other issues which are a little wide of the matter that we are discussing and related more to rents and rent levels. One has every sympathy with students and parents who provide for them. I suspect that I shall probably fall into that category in the not-too-distant future—I shall apply an advance warning in that regard—so one well understands some of the dilemmas that are faced by students and their parents, when the former live in areas where rents are high. That said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I appreciate that he was entirely unprovided with any warning of the point about the Housing Act 1988. This morning I did not know that I was going to make it myself. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could take it away and think about it because it is causing quite considerable hardship.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I heard what the noble Earl said. I am grateful to him for bringing the point before the Committee. We shall read carefully what he said and reflect on it.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. It is particularly helpful to hear of the steps being taken by the Local Government Association and Universities UK in considering some kind of national code. However, I remain concerned, particularly about fire. With regard to what I said about my daughter, I remember that the way out three floors up was via a rope ladder. The rope ladder was in the kitchen and that was how she got out. However, I did not mention the relevant university.
	The Minister did not mention the scale of the problem. I am not sure that we have considered carefully facts and figures regarding the scale of the problem. I hope that Universities UK and the Local Government Association will give us some idea of its scale. One of the pieces of information that came my way when I prepared for the debate was quite frightening. Manchester University owns and manages about 50 halls of residence that are HMOs around the city. The majority of them are purpose built, are at least three storeys high and go back some 50 years. In 1997, in preparation for using this accommodation for the Commonwealth Games, the local authority undertook a comprehensive inspection programme and discovered large-scale disrepair and that much of it related to the management of fire safety precautions.
	I recognise that that is a difficult matter as when I was a student young men delighted in getting out the hoses. The disrepair included inadequate or missing fire alarms and the replacement of fire doors with inadequate alternatives. There is an issue here. I shall read what the Minister has said and hope that the situation will improve. The Minister said that where standards fall below the required level for exemption, action would be taken. However, it is not clear to me how the statutory provisions will kick in. I may have more questions at another stage but given the lateness of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

Returned from the Commons with the amendment to Lords amendments consequential on Commons amendments agreed to without amendment.

Energy Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons with an amendment to a Commons amendment and amendments made to words so restored to the Bill agreed to without amendment.

Draft Mental Health Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, that they concur with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee shall report on the draft Bill by 31 March 2005; and have ordered:
	That a Select Committee of 12 honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Mental Health Bill;
	That the committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
	That the quorum of the committee shall be two.
	House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.